You want to compare me to the ALM people, but it's honestly more like your arguments are the same as those who get angry when people reject both Neo-Nazis and Antifa. Just because I think NN are scumbags doesn't mean I want to get in bed with Anarcho-Communists.
Actually, it's not...for one, I was one of the folks claiming that I disliked both of those groups and taking flak for it. If you'll recall, that was one of those rare days where Rion & Rob were on the same side of a debate.
Second, the two scenarios aren't moral equivalents. The "I oppose both Antifa and Neo Nazis" and "All lives matter" are coming from two very different places. One is a basic observation that both sides of a particular conflict are acting like idiots and both have dangerous ideologies...the other is coming from a place of not wanting to have to acknowledge inconvenient realities that may challenge one's own political platform.
It becomes even more hypocritical when the people who claim to oppose "Black Lives Matter" because it doesn't say "All Lives Matter", get right on board with the "Blue Lives Matter" movement.
For one to admit that systemic racism has put certain communities in a position where they're economically trapped (by no fault of their own) is to admit that conservative economic policies really drop the ball in terms of providing upward mobility for groups that have been left in a rut due to generations of mistreatment. People who are staunch economic conservatives don't seem to want to do that, so it's easier just to pretend that "they could get themselves out of that situation if they just worked hard enough", and in order to preserve that mentality, that also means not acknowledging that certain systematic problems have impacted them more than everyone else.
Just because I am aware of this nation's past failures and the issues of the day, it doesn't mean I want to get in bed with rainbow haired weirdos who ramble about the cisnormative, white, patriarchy all day.
...you're creating a false choice here. It not an "A or B" situation where one has to be all one way or the other. There is nuance. You can say "you know, the democrats are right about certain things and certain social programs and acceptance could really help certain people" without having to be in bed with the rainbow hair weirdos.
Just because white on black racism has been a far bigger issue in this country historically, it doesn't mean I'm going to turn a blind eye to racism of a different shade.
...no, and nobody is claiming you should, they're just claiming that it makes more sense to put the lion's share of the focus where the lion's share of the problem exists.
If you had one kid with a scraped knee, and another with meningitis and a 103 fever, paying extra special attention to the condition of the latter doesn't mean you don't care about the former.
In short, your arguments are like the guy with the camera in this cartoon:
Well, for the reasons I mentioned above, this cartoon doesn't really apply to me, however for the sake of consistency, I would like to point out that the majority of counter protesters that showed up to that smash-up weren't actually antifa-members...there were Antifa, BLM, Women's rights groups, LGBT rights groups...and just plain ol' college kids who don't like Nazis. However, much like the left wing media used their tactic of only showing the bad that the alt-right was doing, the right wing media had their tactic which was to make it seem as if the alt-righters and antifa were the only two groups to show up so they could depict it as a "Nazi v. Commie" battle when it fact that wasn't entirely accurate. They didn't want to come out on the side of the Nazis (for obvious reasons), but at the same time, they couldn't pretend to side with left-wingers (of any kind) either because that hurts their street cred with their viewer base.
