Because people who say that to them are trying to ignore their message and strawmanning it into a supremacist movement to discredit it like you are which will frustrate individuals.
I want to believe this is a sincere question. I think the complaint about color blindness I laid out earlier applies here too. All Lives Matter is an assertion of a color blindness ideal to maintain the status quo. The argument of All Lives Matter is that it doesn't matter who you are, everyone should be treated and valued the same. But that is, from a policy point of view, already what we have on the books and yet racism persists. That's what Black Lives Matter was born of. The rules of engagement for police and courts are the same whether the suspect is black or white, but somehow black suspects have worse outcomes. So BLM wants to identify the root cause and address it. When you say All Lives Matter, you say the policy should be color-blindness, which is the policy that exists today, which means you are advocating for the status quo, a status quo in which blacks are suspected by police more often, are charged by police more often, are shot by police more often, are convicted more often, and serve longer than average sentences. The plea for color blindness that seems so reasonable to white people is anathema to the goals of Black Lives Matter, which is not black supremacy, it's only fairness in outcomes. So when you go to a BLM march and insist that All Lives Matter, what marchers hear is that you think their concerns are illegitimate and they have no reason to complain about the disproportionate outcomes they face when they interact with the justice system. And you wonder why they are hostile to the idea?
It is a sincere question. But what you said and others have said, to what I've seen don't really make sense. If it's something disrespectful to say, okay, I can kind of see that. It's undermining their issue, so yes I've learned something new today. What I don't get is to physically assault people that express those views? And then, my next point was if similar races faced similar issues, would BLM be just as proactive? If not, why not? If so, I haven't seen that. SIL
I'm sure some individuals amongst the millions who support the BLM movement don't have the restraint to not turn frustration into physical altercations. Why are you so surprised about this?
Can you probably threshold number of cases of assault by a movement before you label it "systemically part of the movement"? Throw a number out there. At least we can debate based on a position of emperical and objective evidence.
Cause it still doesn't make it right. And I don't think we can confidently say, if you believe All Lives Matter, you're safe from getting beat up. Which is kind of ****ed up. This was the first I heard of people using that to mock or taunt. I've said I believe ALM when someone asked if i was apart of BLM. Mayweather, for example, I felt was genuine. I really don't see the problem with it. I think BLM is being too sensitive about it, and need to have a higher level of tolerance. I didn't see any uproar for the Indian guy that got paralyzed by a cop, the Asian driver in Minnesota, etc. I find by their cherry picking in protests and by their name, they identity solely towards and are pro only one race. I also notice at these protests, there are more crimes that happen than in any other protest. Would you agree? SIL
I shouldn't have to. If a black person gets mistreated by a cop, and a Chinese man is too it's still wrong. It's the fight against police brutality, not the fight against establishing black lives matter more. SIL
By saying it has to be systematic, you're also devaluing it for others. Let's say a cop kills a black guy, and cop kills a Chinese guy. The cop does not deserve less of a punishment in either case, right? So color me confused, on why BLM is just proactive in police brutality against blacks. It needs to be in general for it not to be systematic. By saying, it's just for blacks. It's racist. Bottom line. SIL
' "All lives matter" is a reaction AGAINST BLM. The premise of BLM is that blacks are being unfairly discriminated against by the criminal justice system and treated less than other races - and the issue of why blacks being lower needs to be addressed. All lives matter is saying the issue doesn't need to be addressed because blacks are treated like everyone else. It's a denial to the claim blacks are making and therefore insulting to someone who feels they are being discriminated against. At best, it's people like yourself who just don't understand what BLM is about. Violence is never justified, but as an organization, BLM is non-violent.
I think people should keep an open mind about immigration and other such topics, rather than being close minded - blindly labeling others as bigoted, racist, ignorant, or evil. There is a lot to learn from countries who have succeeded without high immigration rates - namely that they are not Nazis. The Japanese are nationalistic - that does not make them Nazis. Trump wants to change the immigration rules - that does not make him a Nazi.
I make no pretense. You are full of BS. The creators of the hashtag BLM have said that they did it in response to Trayvon Martin's shooting and the police not arresting George Zimmerman (the eventual outcry leading to a trial that any prosecutor would know was a loser, and never should have been filed). The hashtag blew up in the wake of the Michael Brown shooting as people were pushing a false narrative that he was a "gentle giant" that was simply walking down the street minding his own business when a racist cop rolled up on him and started cursing at him, then held him at gunpoint and when Brown tried to surrender, crying for the officer not to shoot while raising his hands, he was murdered in cold blood. Those facts are not cherry picked, that is the history of BLM. I have never advocated racial discrimination, I have said that a business owner should not be forced by the government to do business with anyone they don't choose to do business with, and that the laws which force them to do so are unconstitutional. Your next claim is a bit vague, but yes, most of the disparities in outcomes for different groups can be traced back to personal choice and not systemic racism. There have been many studies showing that (for example) you will not be permanently poor in America if you complete high school, get a job, and don't have children before getting married - regardless of your race. So when people talk about generational poverty being higher among blacks, and point to discrimination and slavery as the cause, I will point out that no, more likely it is their behavior causing that outcome. People point to rates of incarceration being proof of a discriminatory criminal justice system, but then ignore that the rates at which different races are incarcerated for crimes that have victim witnesses pretty much perfectly track the reporting of the races of the offenders by those victim witnesses (in other words, black people are incarcerated at a higher rate because they commit crimes at a higher rate). There is racism (and not just among white people), but you pick out terrible examples and expect everyone to go along with it. I refuse. Where there is actual racism, we should fight against it. Where there is made up racism to explain certain outcomes people don't like, we should reject those claims. Was Bernie Sanders trolling BLM when he said All Lives Matter? He was certainly attacked as though he had done something wrong.
That is not a factual statement. Not sure where you get the protesters are " extremely violent." With all due respect you seem to be exhibiting extreme bias.
I don't think I labeled anybody bigoted, racist, ignorant or evil there in the post quoted. I try to avoid dismissing people as racist (though I don't always succeed). I don't have a strong opinion on the Japanese. They certainly do immigration differently than us. But, I don't think we're like them. Their national identity seems to be strongly imprinted with their racial identity. I'm not a big fan. It's that attitude that brought them into WWII. But, that's their issue to contend with. I think my American identity necessarily involves immigrants and diversity. I'm not interested in a homogeneous America. We haven't been homogeneous for 500 years, I don't want to start now. My own family has anglo, black, Chinese, French, German, and now Australian. And I don't mean from a couple of generations back. I have friends from what seems like every corner of the globe. So whatever benefits you could have from curtailing immigration rates, I don't want them. This is what it means to me to be American.
If I need to say it, okay: I think assaulting people for saying that all lives matter or saying anything else is wrong. And not helpful. But people do that sometimes. You are under the impression that BLM events are extremely violent and crime-ridden and had some anecdotes. Others recognize that sometimes crimes do happen but believe that's the exception and not the rule. Does anyone have statistics or other evidence at all to back up either assertion? I do not. This will also be anecdotal, but I have it on my mind to go march at a BLM event at my next opportunity because I want to see what one is like. Hopefully, I don't get questioned by the FBI. Other races do face similar issues and BLM does appear to me to be pretty focused on the black experience. I don't have a big hang up about it. Organizations under the BLM banner might agitate for people of other races, I don't know. BLM itself is more an idea than an organization though (the three black lesbians that StupidMoniker is fixed upon notwithstanding). The power of that idea is communicating a lot about the black experience with three words. If you nuance it by adding Hispanics, Vietnamese, Muslims, whatever, it would cease to be anything at all. So, I don't have a problem with the focus. I don't take it to mean that they don't care about anybody else. Besides, the relationship between blacks and the justice system is probably the most problematic; if you can fix that one, all the others can ride the coattails. For the cop, an unjustified use of force against a Chinese guy or a black guy deserves the same punishment. It's not about that. It's about what is it about our justice apparatus that makes it more likely to be the black guy than the Chinese guy. Did his race mean the black guy was more likely to be confronted by the policeman in the first place than a Chinese guy. Did the interaction escalate badly because of racial distrust and disrespect between the cop and the suspect. Did the policeman resort to violence more quickly than he would with a Chinese guy because the suspect's race irrationally impacted his threat assessment. When other policemen investigated the use of force, did they give the officer more benefit of the doubt because the suspect was black (the cop matters here because they respond to deterrents like anyone else -- the more risk of prosecution, the more careful he will be). When the prosecutor looks at the case, is he going to apply more severe indictments to the suspect from his array of applicable laws because of his race. Are the array of laws he has available to him written in a way to fall more heavily on black citizens (think here for instance in the disparate punishments for powder cocaine and crack). Will he apply lighter indictments to the officer because he gives him the benefit of the doubt. Is he less likely to bring charges against the officer at all because he knows cases against officers are very hard to win and he doesn't want to waste his budget on it. Is the officer going to have a strong legal defense because the police union supplies lawyers. Is the black suspect going to be stuck with an inexperienced, underpaid, and overworked public defender because he can't afford a lawyer of his own. When they go to trial, is the trial judge going to have expansive orders to the jury for the black suspect. Is the jury going to be more apt to condemn the suspect because he's black. Once guilt is found, will they sentence the suspect more harshly because he is black. There are a million little micro-events where perhaps some unconscious racial tinge can incrementally move the needle. If you look at any one event, you could make a plausible argument that there was no racial factor. But, if you add up everything in the end after you accumulated all the little events for each person's journey through the justice system multiplied by the many thousands of people, you see a clear measurable result. Blacks are more likely to be confronted by police, more likely to be arrested, more likely to get convicted, and more likely to get a harsh sentence. I think BLM protesters are often wrong on individual cases. They claim too much. But they are not wrong about the pattern of injustice.
We haven't had a problem valuing the lives of most people as it is. We just have some stragglers. So, yes, we do need to make the system such that all lives really do matter in real terms. So, we agree. As I've argued elsewhere, the 'leaders' aren't relevant. They aren't exactly Martin Luther King, Jr. They came up with a clever tag line that gave a movement an identity. They run a little NGO and do speeches and run a website. But, they aren't in charge of BLM. Nobody is in charge of BLM. This is the color blindness philosophy I described (and criticized) earlier. Yeah, I get it. Take out reference to race in the rules and everyone is treated fairly, right. I'd say we've been making progress there since 1964. But, we're only seeing fairness in inputs, not outputs. Color blindness only looks at inputs and says, 'well, everything that went in was fair, so everything that comes out must be fair as well.' But, the statisticians come and say 'well, we measured the things that came out and we see that they are not fair, there are heavy biases that correlate to race.' So now what? I addressed this line of argument in my response to SIL above. It does sound like you have a significant communication and mutual understanding problem with BLM. I think I actually have a harder time understanding this 'white' view even though I'm white myself. I suppose because it is so obvious to me how the ALM reaction is offensive and I don't see why people don't get that. But, I do harken back to when I thought color blindness was the way (I wrote a paper for college admissions criticizing BU for it's affirmative action program on this premise. They admitted me anyway (but didn't offer enough student aid)). I'd liken it to a free market approach to race relations. Set up an even playing field and let private rational actors optimize. If the playing field is really level, then people succeed or fail on their own merits and there isn't anything unfair about who succeeds and who fails. If you see blacks fail more, it's not necessarily the fault of the playing field. It can be the qualities that individuals bring that we can't control -- I won't say racial superiority here because I don't believe that, but instead culture. But even that is okay because, due to the market mechanics that awards success without prejudice, in the long run that culture will adapt and the racial disparities will shrink to nothingness. In that view, I don't think I'd see BLM as asking for special status, but I probably would dismiss it as impatient and irrational. That used to be my argument. I don't think that's hard to understand. It's easy to maintain when you don't have to live it every day. But after a few decades of seeing evidence that the playing field is subtly not so level, that actors are not rational, and that some actors are exerting market power, it's hard to go along any longer. So every time you say 'be color blind and everything will work out in the end' your detractors are going to tell you what they see -- color blindness does not seem to be making things any better, progress has stalled out, and in some areas we are going backwards. If we keep riding this color blindness train, we are never going to arrive. If you say that quietly, no one will hear you. If you march, and protest, and maybe smash a few windows, more people will hear you or at least know that you have a bee in your bonnet about something.
I always have to laugh at this kind of take, essentially you are saying that equality of opportunity is no good if there isn't equality of outcome and so you are supporting discrimination in order to achieve equality of outcome. You can't force people to make the right decisions so equality of outcome will never be achieved without significant discrimination against those who do the right thing. When you are arguing in favor of discrimination doesn't that just feel like backwards thinking?
