[commenting]

Black Lives Matter means Black Lives Matter as well.

The All Lives Matter movement, as a reaction to BLM, is essentially saying that they don't, and that the racial struggles of American Blacks are irrelevant.

That is the reason why All Lives Matter is considered abusive.

[kemayo]

My preferred analogy to use here is that saying "it's not just black lives that matter, all lives matter" is like going to your fire department and saying "it's not just houses on fire that matter, all houses matter".

Yes, of course, they do. But some houses need immediate attention because they're in danger.

[StavrosK]

Then it's a failure in marketing, as the fire deparment doesn't market itself as "department for throwing water at houses". Maybe BLM should be more clear about its goals?

I'm not really up-to-speed with US politics, but I know it's horrifying how easily and with impunity the police have been killing black people. Still, "Black lives matter" isn't a great slogan, and calling "all lives matter" racist definitely seems like an overreaction. I'm not familiar with ALM's positions, though, so maybe it's a racist organization in disguise, I don't know.

[Chathamization]

> Then it's a failure in marketing, as the fire deparment doesn't market itself as "department for throwing water at houses".

Well, the fire department does tell people that they need to pay attention to things that might cause fires. The response isn't "well, people should pay attention to all dangerous things! What about car accidents?"

I mean, this isn't a difficult concept to grasp. When someone is raising money for orphans, people don't usually say "but what about money for veterans?" When people are raising awareness about breast cancer, you don't usually tell them "hey, we should be raising awareness for all cancer." They don't get angry that Smokey Bear focuses on forest fires ("Oh, house fires don't matter to you?").

People understand single-issue campaigns for most things, but some suddenly have an issue with it when it comes to African Americans deaths. This naturally raises a few eyebrows.

[cloudsloth]

I think it's a great slogan. If everyone (society at large) aleady believed all lives matter then it would be a dumb slogan. It's a great slogan because currently black lives don't matter in many people's eyes. In my experience the only people who don't like the slogan either don't think black lives matter or are absurdly blind to the reality of racism in this country.

The controversy isn't because it's a bad slogan. The controversy is evidence of it being the correct slogan.

[JoeAltmaier]

Yeah its a knee-jerk reaction and sad. The more accurate slogan would be "Black Lives Also Matter" but that isn't as effective. I think we all really understand that's what "Black Lives Matter" means. The real question is, why the strong counter-reaction? Why the sophistry around the slogan? What is that covering for?

[StavrosK]

I don't live in the US, so I'm out of that particular loop, but I was talking to an american friend of mine about police shootings and he told me about BLM, and I said "but it seems to me that the issue isn't that the police shouldn't be killing black people, it's that the police shouldn't be killing anyone!".

It seems that the argument has been framed around black people's mistreatment in general, which is fair enough, but, when specifically talking about the police, it seems to me that getting the latter to be less trigger-happy would alleviate the problem for all races, which is why I find the focus on black people a bit odd.

[JoeAltmaier]

Only if you don't know the stories. Its famous that white serial killers are treated better in some circumstances, than black people selling cigarettes on a street corner. One gets taken to McDonalds on the way to jail; the other strangled and killed.

[StavrosK]

Really? Wow. Yeah, that's... a problem.

[cloudsloth]

Why are you belittling it as a knee-jerk reaction and sad?

A group of people is experiencing horrible and unjust treatment. The implication of the situation is they don't matter, and the correct reformist statement is that they do matter.

Black lives matter also is not the correct statement. It is the correct understanding of the while situation but you need to keep in mind the nuance of language.

[JoeAltmaier]

Sorry if that got misinterpreted. Its sad that folks react with "All Lives Matter" as if the slogan "Black Lives Matter" isn't clear.

[leereeves]

Before there was an All Lives Matter movement, there was one candidate who said:

"Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter."

Whatever may have happened after, there was little justification to destroy that candidate for saying this.

[makomk]

Here is how Donald Trump described said candidate's apology for that: "And then he apologized like a little baby, like a disgusting, little weak, pathetic baby, and that's the problem with our country," [1]

Make no mistake, Trump and the alt-right are incredibly hostile to anyone who doesn't see Black Lives Matter as an evil, racist attack on white people, who don't think that blacks complaining about police violence against them is the real racism.

[1] http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/21/politics/martin-omalley-do...

[leereeves]

I think that's true, but I also think one reason that works for him is that the left is so hostile to a moderate position.

[spacemanmatt]

Seems more directly applicable that it works for him because the alt-right is so hostile to a moderate position.

[leereeves]

Both sides are.

People had to choose between two extremes, not one extreme and one moderate position.

[GFK_of_xmaspast]

Nobody liked Martin O'Malley even before he said that.

[aminorex]

I may not have liked him, but I thought he was a more viable candidate than Clinton or Sanders. Certainly less intrinsically offensive than Clinton, who was a truly awful candidate.

[tyho]

All lives matter may be distasteful (I don't actually know anything about it and am not making a judgment one way or another) but calling it "abusive" is exactly the sort of over the top PC nonsense which fuels the alt-right.

EDIT: Perhaps I am wrong here, as I said, I know nothing about All Lives Matter, can you justify calling it an "abusive" movement?

[cloudsloth]

All lives matter is a direct response to black lives matter and is trying to nullify the claims of the latter. It is functionally abusive because it actively fights increased awareness of the racism that BLM was(is) working towards.

The statement 'All Lives Matter' not as response to BLM would have been fine, but come on. No one here is blind to the current discussion to that extent.

[tyho]

I am not arguing for "All Lives Matter", but fighting against awareness is a very low bar for "abuse".

[iopq]

> The All Lives Matter movement, as a reaction to BLM, is essentially saying that they don't

That's not what "all" means. It's turning the name of the movement by implying it means "only" Black Lives Matter. So All Lives Matter is saying that not only Black Lives Matter.

[commenting]

Only if you take the literal interpretation of the words, rather than the connotation and context that I explained in my comment.

[drewrv]

If one truly believed "all lives matter" then one would not object to the statement "black lives matter".

[dak1]

> When they shouted, "Black lives matter!" a rallying cry of protests that broke out after several black Americans were killed at the hands of police in recent months, O'Malley responded: "Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter."

O'Malley was eviscerated for that statement, even though he clearly agreed with the sentiment that black lives matter.

I can understand the concern that some have that turning "Black Lives Matter" into "All Lives Matter" could conceal the reality that people with darker skin have been disproportionately impacted by our Justice system, but I also agree with the contention that overreaching and overreacting to a statement that seems completely reasonable to people not deeply aware of the discussion can ultimately have the opposite effect and serve as fuel to movements like the alt right.

[grad_ml]

The question is why people of color have to come up with "BLM" movement. Why not Latinos, White or some other racial entity (not yet, because they are not demographically significant)? Because there had been numerous instances, when black folks have been murdered by police brutally without any repercussions from courts or government. So, this is not the time for all lives matter, yet.

[leereeves]

In truth this happens to all races.

It does happen to black people somewhat more often, per capita, but 50% of people killed by police are white.

[kemayo]

Mind, since ~70% of the US population is white, that does imply whites are less likely to be killed by the police.

Predicting the likely response to this, of course, we get into the (surprisingly hard to accurately work out) question of what proportion of crimes are committed by people of various races, and to what extent that figure is manipulated by conscious / subconscious bias on the part of law enforcement. (It's a swamp, and I don't feel like arguing about it tonight, I just wanted to acknowledge it's complicated.)

Edit to acknowledge: yes, it's more like 60% white if you're splitting out Hispanic-origin into its own category. Still, disproportionate.

[sangnoir]

> Predicting the likely response to this, of course, we get into the (surprisingly hard to accurately work out) question of what proportion of crimes are committed by people of various races

I find this argument (the one you are referring to) to be spurious. We don't calculate the number of rapes committed by men and there is no subsequent societal bias against men as criminal by default (or suspect by default). Not to mention the mindset leads to a feedback loop: "Of the bugs found during team code reviews, 50% were in Bob's code" will lead to everyone going through Bob's code with a fine tooth comb - and finding yet more bugs, while Stacy's code never gets a second glance regardless of its quality[1].

1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/04/the-b...

[BurningFrog]

I think what's important about this is if the big problem is (1) race disproportionality or (2) general police brutality and unaccountability.

If the main problem is (2), but society mobilizes to solve (1), thigs won't get better.

[kemayo]

I feel that these problems are linked.

If we solved (1), everyone would be equally likely to suffer from police brutality. This would make us more likely to then go ahead and fix (2), because suddenly it would no longer be something which mostly happens to long-downtrodden minority groups.

Mind, if we fix (2) first, it's somewhat plausible that we might continue in a situation where minority groups are disproportionately targeted by the police, and we just go "eh, it's not that bad, we're not shooting them all the time any more".

[iopq]

Yes, but whites are less likely to be suspects in crimes (per capita, since whites live in nicer areas on average), so the polices won't stop them as often.

[jsf666]

> Mind, since ~70% of the US population is white, that does imply whites are less likely to be killed by the police.

The thing is most violent crime is commited by blacks even though they are about 13% of the population. So please don't act like evil cops just hunt them down for fun, that's the biggest gripe with BLM. They act like it's 1900 when that's just BS

[BurningFrog]

> Black Lives Matter means Black Lives Matter as well.

Agreed.

And that implies that Black Lives currently do not matter, which hopefully we can all agree is a big overstatement.

I understand that movements need simple powerful slogans to chant and make bumper stickers from. That's fine. But let's not treat these three words as some definitive analysis of race in America.

[ilugaslifg]

Yes, "black lives matter as well". That is a statement that I now understand and strongly appreciate the power and full meaning of, after spending a good amount of time and emotional and intellectual effort on it.

The problem is innocent people who happen onto the conversation, interpret it at first glance, not unreasonably, as some insane asshole saying "only black lives matter", engage in good faith on that basis, to uphold ideals that we can all agree are right... and subsequently are piled on by a mob who agree that the offender has just instantly and irredeemably proven themselves to be one of the worst things they've been taught it's possible to be. With a real, non-zero chance of their real lives being actually, materially ruined as part of this public shaming.

The problem is things like "Black Lives Matter" being used as a shibboleth[0] -- an excuse to form a gleeful lynch mob, giving everybody a pleasurable and community-affirming chance to engage in collective norm-enforcement against The Other.

The problem is an atmosphere where I'm so paranoid about even attempting to have a good-faith intellectual conversation about this that I have to create a throwaway account to remove a not-at-all implausible chance of having my life ruined for even engaging on this topic at all.

And this isn't even getting into the atmosphere that seems to really be setting in, where agreeing to listen to someone has become tantamount to agreeing with everything they say. That's the really frightening one.

----

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth

[farright]

You are interpreting "all lives matter" to mean this.

It could also mean that black people are not especially target by the police and that outrage at law enforcement is misplaced. For example we know that the rates of police violence against black people vs white people roughly mirrors arrest and conviction rates.

Now you might consider this incorrect, but I think it's a debate that has to be had in the open and not shut down by calling people racist.