No Lives Matter vs All Lives Matter

[Aldebaran]

Are you unable to respond without an "I know you are but what am I?" kind of argument

Also, ps....was it Antifa or BLM. Or does it even REALLY matter to you since it's all a bunch of commies?

Other than "events happened at BLM riots" you haven't even proven that BLM are perpetrators. And continue to completely ignore the 93% rule

It happened when BLM showed up. Oh, but that doesn't mean anything unless CAPITOL RIOT!

 

[Aldebaran]

Well, I would say I disagree with that video. But I also think her message got skewed by protesters.

She seems to be advocating for looting of major chains and high end stores because they are insured. I know this makes me a "bad capitalist" but, while i disagree with looting, I'm a bit ambivalent about the idea of looting in that way..

Sadly, what came out in the wash is the destruction of a lot of small businesses who may not have insurance (or likely, not as GOOD insurance).

Are you saying that destruction and looting are good as long as the insurance companies are the ones who cover the majority of the financial costs (and then raise their rates so the rest of us eventually pay as well)?
Would it be just as ok to loot and burn down a black-owned business if they have insurance?

 

[Strathos]

Discriminating against other cancers isn't the same as discriminating against people based on their skin color.

A little child can understand this, why can't you?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The "....matters" battle was a petty and shallow spitting contest highlighting how far identity politics has dragged civil discourse down into the gutters.

"All Lives Matter" was a disingenuous response to the slogan "Black Lives Matter" that was rooted in a semantically overloaded (and somewhat dishonest) set of statements.

Or, another way to put it.

One said claims to be focused on a cause that's aimed at addressing an issue, but lumping in a bunch of unrelated ideologies like "dismantling capitalism" and "dismantling the nuclear family unit and the patriarchy" (and then accusing people of not caring about the former, when they reject the group for the latter)

...and the opposing side responded, not with a well-reasoned argument or highlighting the glaring flaws I mentioned above, but rather with an equally semantically overloaded slogan that's about silly and disingenuous as showing up at a breast cancer 5k run/walk, and telling the runners "now now! we should be trying to fight ALL cancer!"


My response to the BLM movement has been direct and to the point. (both in online debate and in the real world).

I agree with the semantically stated cause, but if their movement wants my support... ditch the commie and postmodernist feminism drivel, and focus on the semantically stated cause.

Supporting the ideals of police accountability and addressing systemic racial inequality shouldn't have to be saddled with opposing capitalism and embracing whims of a gender studies major at Berkeley.

As I've stated before, a group could call themselves "StopSealClubbing", and if one of their side-mission statements is "dismantling capitalism", I won't support them...and I'll be honest about the reason I don't support them. ...however, if I rebuttal their movement by forming a movement called "StopAllAnimalClubbing" (with just as many overloaded undertones), then it would make me no better than the group I was opposing.

 

[Aldebaran]

A little child can understand this, why can't you?

Parents exploiting their children this way is rather tasteless.

 

[rambot]

Are you saying that destruction and looting are good as long as the insurance companies are the ones who cover the majority of the financial costs (and then raise their rates so the rest of us eventually pay as well)
?

thanks for asking! No. I'm not saying that at all.

Best of luck!

 

[Aldebaran]

thanks for asking! No. I'm not saying that at all.

Best of luck!

Let's take another look so you can help clarify it then:

She seems to be advocating for looting of major chains and high end stores because they are insured. I know this makes me a "bad capitalist" but, while i disagree with looting, I'm a bit ambivalent about the idea of looting in that way..

The definition of ambivalent is: "having mixed feelings or contradictory ideas about something"

Were you claiming to at least be undecided as to whether looting a business based on whether or not the owner has insurance? Financial concerns aside, there are other types of insurance an owner can employ, some of which can be quite unpleasant to a looter.

 

[Leet]

Meh. The pendulum tends to swing really far one way before it starts swinging back evenly. Pointless being all indignant about it. All we can do is check the mirror; make sure we treat everyone fairly and impartially ourselves.

 

[Ana the Ist]

"All Lives Matter" or "Blue Lives Matter" slogans were pretty obviously dreamed up, not as a meaningful critique of the BLM movement where the person saying these things absolutely agreed in the sanctity of life and that "police are important". Too many of the people who trotted out these lines did not really comport their arguments in line with the idea that all lives matter and frankly, more than a few people who said blue lives matter, didn't really have much to say about the cop who died on jan 6 nor the many cops injured (and certainly appeared totally uninterested in the racism cops experienced) that day.

Though it's quite likely some people still repeat these lines and perhaps truly do think that they matter, it caused me to wonder.

If you can't recognize the struggles of others or even acknowledge them and prefer to simply abandon them or ignore them, it seems FAR more precise to say that "No Lives Matter" instead of all lives.

If all lives mattered, you'd be able to recognize other people's struggles. Especially when they provide data and anecdotal evidence.

Anecdotal evidence isn't useful as evidence .

As for data...one has to actually understand it, and what it shows, and be willing to base their conclusions on it....not simply look for data that supports their conclusions.

As for cops....what are you saying? That these cops are heroes? Because many on the left claimed these cops must have been racist or they would have shot these protesters. If you're saying they're heroes, that's fine, I just want to be sure that is the position you're taking.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well, I would say I disagree with that video. But I also think her message got skewed by protesters.

She seems to be advocating for looting of major chains and high end stores because they are insured. I know this makes me a "bad capitalist" but, while i disagree with looting, I'm a bit ambivalent about the idea of looting in that way..

Sadly, what came out in the wash is the destruction of a lot of small businesses who may not have insurance (or likely, not as GOOD insurance).

I read that in Portland, businesses are having trouble finding any insurer.

It shouldn't come as a surprise but insurance companies have been raising their rates...a lot....to cover riot damage.

That, or they refuse to cover riot damage.

The result will be a loss of business and opportunities for these communities...and the blame lies squarely on them.

 

[Ana the Ist]

A little child can understand this, why can't you?

Using children for political propaganda is abuse.

Do you think that child is really in danger? From what?

 

[Aldebaran]

Using children for political propaganda is abuse.

Do you think that child is really in danger? From what?

Can't tell since the picture doesn't show the long view. But they wouldn't be there holding signs if their parents hadn't gotten them to do it. But then again, I didn't say anything about danger.

 

[Ken-1122]

Meh. The pendulum tends to swing really far one way before it starts swinging back evenly. Pointless being all indignant about it.

You seem to have the attitude when this happens it should be understood, or even accepted as a normal thing; I disagree. When the pendulum is anywhere but dead center it should be met with outrage challenge and corrected immediately; because impartially should never be accepted regardless of where it comes. As the old saying goes; when good people allow bad people to spread hostility and sin unchallenged, those good people become contributors of hostility and sin.

 

[Ken-1122]

A little child can understand this, why can't you?

The kid doesn't get it; she doesn't know what she is saying, she is only parroting what her ignorant parents tell her

 

[rambot]

Who or what gives life worth?

Listening acknowledging, believing is a start.

 

[rambot]

The kid doesn't get it; she doesn't know what she is saying, she is only parroting what her ignorant parents tell her

Aww .yes. The black people are ignorant of their own experience in America and then taught their children that America will react to them the same way

 

[Ken-1122]

Aww .yes. The black people are ignorant of their own experience in America and then taught their children that America will react to them the same way

People react to what they see in the media despite their own personal experiences. When the media gives a false impression by telling just enough truth, while leaving out just enough facts to give a false impression; there are too many people who will buy into that false impression and react accordingly regardless of their own personal experiences.
So it's not like they are ignorant of their own personal experiences in America, they're ignorant of the facts concerning their group in America due to a media that is finds attention more valuable than the truth

 

[Strathos]

Parents exploiting their children this way is rather tasteless.

Using children for political propaganda is abuse.

Do you think that child is really in danger? From what?

The kid doesn't get it; she doesn't know what she is saying, she is only parroting what her ignorant parents tell her

First of all, you underestimate kids, as they're a lot smarter than you think.

Second of all, none of you even attempted to address the actual message. It seems you're not even able to comprehend the concept that is being conveyed here.

 

[Ken-1122]

First of all, you underestimate kids, as they're a lot smarter than you think.

You don't know how smart or obtuse I think kids are, so you aren't qualified to judge me that way

Second of all, none of you even attempted to address the actual message. It seems you're not even able to comprehend the concept that is being conveyed here.

Wrong; I have personally addressed the actual message.

 

[Pommer]

People react to what they see in the media despite their own personal experiences.

While commenting on a child definitely not reacting to what she (or her parents) “see in the media” but out & about with a homemade sign explaining to us what their message actually is?
Priceless.