[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.