[AgentME]

"Black lives matter" is a slogan that largely refers to a desire to solve issues related to police brutality and black people. "White lives matter", as it's commonly said and understood, is merely a contrarian pushback against that desire to fix those issues.

Obviously white lives do matter like others, but making a statement of something communicates something other than the literal meaning: it asserts that there's part of the meaning that the receiver isn't demonstrating knowledge of, and it evokes connections to things people have encountered before. If you say "white lives matter", intending it to mean something about suicide statistics, and other people interpret it as racist pushback against solving police brutality, the other people aren't doing something surprising or wrong. You would just be fruitlessly rebelling against how language actually works.

If you want to raise awareness about suicide, go ahead, but don't use a slogan that already has a meaning that will be misinterpreted in your context, and certainly don't do it competitively against people raising awareness for a different issue.

[rafale]

One could argue that the BLM slogan, being intentionally divisive and exclusive, is designed to provoke from day one rather than bring up constructive change. It's a heavily politicized movement. Since Biden was elected for example, the issue of BLM and police brutality is not mediatized nearly as much as before. It's not that the problem was fixed overnight, it's just that there is no use for it right now by the progressive left agenda.

It's not a honest movement. I refuse to support it even if I support the general idea that our police force and judicial system need reform to infuse them with more humanity and empathy.

And given that the two of us, as reasonable people, can have a rational disagreement on this issue, why should our employer take a side? Why bring this discussion in the office? It's not like the issue is so obvious and simple (i.e. all people have equal rights, women should be able to go to school, ...) that it's okay employers take a side. The simple stuff is usually written in the US constitution. And employers don't take stand opposite of it because... it's unconstitutional.

[joshuamorton]

The slogan is only divisive if you make it so. It certainly isn't "intentionally" divisive.

> Since Biden was elected for example

Looking at Google trends, there's basically no correlation between Bidens election and "Black Lives Matter". You're reaching to creating a narrative that doesn't fit the facts.

> even if I support the general idea that our police force and judicial system need reform to infuse them with more humanity and empathy.

Do you support any group or organization that does policeor criminal justice reform?

> It's not like the issue is so obvious and simple (i.e. all people have equal rights, women should be able to go to school, ...) that it's okay employers take a side. The simple stuff is usually written in the US constitution.

The stuff you mentioned doesn't start out in the constitution (and arguably actually still aren't). It only got there due to activism by people and organizations, some of which happened in the workplace. Were they wrong to do so? Concretely, you're making an argument from status quo in a conversation about how we change norms. That misses the point, unless your point is that the norms shouldn't change.

[rafale]

> Looking at Google trends, there's basically no correlation between Bidens election and "Black Lives Matter".

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&ge...

There is a perfect correlation.

> Do you support any group or organization that does policeor criminal justice reform?

It's not the issue here. I am not even trying to say you are wrong about BLM. My point is it's one of those issues where 2 reasonable people can disagree. And employers shouldn't take sides.

> Concretely, you're making an argument from status quo in a conversation about how we change norms.

Strawman fallacy. My only argument is that work environment shouldn't be politicized. Which in turn allow people with different ideologies to work together effectively in a safe non-toxic environment. If you were my co-worker I would refuse to discuss this issue unless we have a very close bond/friendship outside of work and we are comfortable discussing this kind of stuff.

We can effect change through debates, voting, protests, ...

[pseudalopex]

The chart shows a large spike in June 2020. Then a sharp decline between June and the election. Like the protests. Then a slow decline after the election with small spikes in 2021.

[joshuamorton]

> There is a perfect correlation.

Erm, no. If there were some sort of correlation, looking at that graph you should be able to tell me where on the graph Biden either won the election or took office (Nov 4th or Jan 21st). You can't. What you do see is a wonderful bit of exponential decay from an event that wasn't related to Biden: the death of George Floyd on May 26. That's the vertical line. And then an expected exponential decay.

If you look at https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2020-01-01%202..., for example, Election, Joe Biden, and Trump are all strongly correlated. Heck, Trump and Black Lives Matter are briefly correlated, but Election and Black Lives Matter aren't.

> Strawman fallacy.

No, you literally made an, if we want to get technical, argumentum ad antiquitatem. Pointing that out isn't a fallacy. It's what you did.

> Which in turn allow people with different ideologies to work together effectively in a safe non-toxic environment.

People who disagree with you would claim that often they do not feel the environment is safe and non-toxic. They aren't comfortable with the status quo, hence their attempts to change it. That you are unaware of the toxicity and lack of safety doesn't invalidate their experiences. In fact, its an example of the challenges they have to overcome to achieve the safety and non-toxicity you enjoy and presume.

> My only argument is that work environment shouldn't be politicized.

No, you said, and I quote:

" It's not like the issue is so obvious and simple (i.e. all people have equal rights, women should be able to go to school, ...) that it's okay employers take a side." Your opinion is that employers can clearly take a side sometimes, but only in cases where some norm (the constitution as it is today) dictates. If that's not what you intended, please clarify, but that's precisely the argument you made, and again, it wasn't a strawman for me to point that out.