Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Black/White/Blue/All Lives Matter
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ThatRobGuy" data-source="post: 75339812" data-attributes="member: 123415"><p>I think there's a couple underlying reasons for the "wordplay battle"</p><p></p><p>I don't think it's any secret that "All Lives Matter" and "Blue Lives Matter" were a reactionary (somewhat bitter) response to "Black Lives Matter"</p><p></p><p>There was an unreasonable objection to it, and a reasonable one.</p><p></p><p>I'll start with the unreasonable one:</p><p>Basically, for some conservatives, the mere discussion that Black people may have a disproportionately negative experience with the criminal justice system, as a whole, shattered some deeply held narratives about "law and order" and "the cops are the good guys and heroes" made them ultra-defensive for some reason...and I don't doubt for a second, at least in certain parts of the country, that objection was rooted in negative, unfair stereotypes about Black people and a misunderstanding about how poverty has multi-generational impacts, and if a group was disproportionately discriminated against within the last 3 generations, it leads to higher poverty rates which lead to higher crime rates...so it's unreasonable to think that because some federal legislation was passed in the 60's, everything should be "even-steven" today.</p><p></p><p>For that group, I typically rebuttal them by asking "If you were at a Susan G Komen event for breast cancer, would you walk around chastising the ladies saying <em>now now, fighting all forms of cancer is important!</em>"?</p><p></p><p></p><p>For the reasonable objection:</p><p>The movement was a semantically overloaded one, and that was an oversight by the founders and people who jumped on board with the movement early on. If ending discrimination and correcting issues with the criminal justice system were the goal, that should've been a single-threaded purpose with the focus put on that instead of lumping other unrelated ideologies in with it.</p><p></p><p>If I started a movement, and had 1 idea that was agreed upon by most, and 3 others that people are largely put off by (and one of which even attacked most people on a personal level), then when people opposed me for those other 3, and I accused them of not caring about the #1 issue they did agree with me on, it's easy to understand why they would be on the defensive.</p><p></p><p>That's basically what happened.</p><p></p><p>Had BLM kept the focus on the hard data focused on</p><p></p><p>1) correcting the issues of disproportionate sentencing and disproportionate negative interactions with law enforcement, they'd probably have majority support.</p><p></p><p>...instead of lumping in stipulative premises like</p><p>2) reparations</p><p>3) neo-marxism</p><p>4) "all white people benefit from racism, and all white people have an implicit bias against black people"</p><p></p><p>...and then saying "if you ardently reject any of those 2,3, or 4, then that means you don't care about correcting the issue listed in #1, their movement would probably have majority support.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ThatRobGuy, post: 75339812, member: 123415"] I think there's a couple underlying reasons for the "wordplay battle" I don't think it's any secret that "All Lives Matter" and "Blue Lives Matter" were a reactionary (somewhat bitter) response to "Black Lives Matter" There was an unreasonable objection to it, and a reasonable one. I'll start with the unreasonable one: Basically, for some conservatives, the mere discussion that Black people may have a disproportionately negative experience with the criminal justice system, as a whole, shattered some deeply held narratives about "law and order" and "the cops are the good guys and heroes" made them ultra-defensive for some reason...and I don't doubt for a second, at least in certain parts of the country, that objection was rooted in negative, unfair stereotypes about Black people and a misunderstanding about how poverty has multi-generational impacts, and if a group was disproportionately discriminated against within the last 3 generations, it leads to higher poverty rates which lead to higher crime rates...so it's unreasonable to think that because some federal legislation was passed in the 60's, everything should be "even-steven" today. For that group, I typically rebuttal them by asking "If you were at a Susan G Komen event for breast cancer, would you walk around chastising the ladies saying [I]now now, fighting all forms of cancer is important![/I]"? For the reasonable objection: The movement was a semantically overloaded one, and that was an oversight by the founders and people who jumped on board with the movement early on. If ending discrimination and correcting issues with the criminal justice system were the goal, that should've been a single-threaded purpose with the focus put on that instead of lumping other unrelated ideologies in with it. If I started a movement, and had 1 idea that was agreed upon by most, and 3 others that people are largely put off by (and one of which even attacked most people on a personal level), then when people opposed me for those other 3, and I accused them of not caring about the #1 issue they did agree with me on, it's easy to understand why they would be on the defensive. That's basically what happened. Had BLM kept the focus on the hard data focused on 1) correcting the issues of disproportionate sentencing and disproportionate negative interactions with law enforcement, they'd probably have majority support. ...instead of lumping in stipulative premises like 2) reparations 3) neo-marxism 4) "all white people benefit from racism, and all white people have an implicit bias against black people" ...and then saying "if you ardently reject any of those 2,3, or 4, then that means you don't care about correcting the issue listed in #1, their movement would probably have majority support. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Black/White/Blue/All Lives Matter
Top
Bottom