Black Lives Matter are defending murderers and drug dealers.

I haven't seen very much of this, to be honest. I see "All lives matter" is on conservative websites or in discussions used primarily to dismiss minority concerns.

And on Social Media, it is often accompanied by pictures of military, or soldiers, or used "against" BLM:









Or to support anti-abortion campaigns:





It's funny because in these abortion ones, you KNOW that their focus is actually on the fetus, not "all lives."

~

So either it is hijacking the movement for their own agenda, or it just doesn't address anything related to the underlying problem. Making the claim that "All lives matter" is nice and all, but it DOESN'T DO Bane Shift if you just use it as an argument against people who are trying to do something to actually make it happen:



Maybe you have good intentions when you say, "All lives matter," Ohmin, but it isn't how I see it used normally. Normally, I see it used basically to say "There's no problem here. You guys are just making it up #alllivesmatter" or just used to strawman those who care about these issues as not caring about anything else OR are actually causing the problem.

 

No, it doesn't. Saying you care about one thing doesn't mean you don't care about anything else.

If my particular passion is "saving elephants" it doesn't mean I think the Rhinos aren't worth saving - it's just not where my specific energy is focused (though one can see how efforts to save elephants may, indirectly, also help the rhinos).

 

How do you feel about the fact that numerous studies have shown that blacks get harsher prison sentences than whites who commit similar crimes? Is that just a narrative?

 

See how other people use All Lives Matter, @Ohmin? This is what I am saying.

 

Not really.

Since Black Lives Matter doesn't say "Black Lives Matter ONLY" and the poacher is actually going after the Rhino significantly more often than the other 2 - which makes the need much more urgent.

Now, you might disagree about the claim of the need, and that's fine. But I think strawmanning people who care about racial disparities as not caring about anything else isn't helpful.

 

See, @Ohmin? This is how #alllivesmatter is used in my experience - to dismiss the idea that there is actually a problem and to strawman people and to claim that the other side is actually the ones causing a problem.

The reality is that the only side being dismissive of a problem is "alllivesmatter" who dismiss the idea that blacks being targeted is a potential problem while at the same time claiming (without evidence) that the other side doesn't care about anything else.

~

Anyway, in answer I will just quote myself:

 

Anyway, I certainly respect that if you don't think there is a problem, that you might find people fighting for that problem to be ridiculous.

I just wish you wouldn't misrepresent the position. We just disagree on the underlying premise, that's all.

Personally, I have problems with a lot of what the police does in various areas that aren't racial. But I don't think people need to simultaneously demonstrate that they care about all issues equally. It's fine for some people to focus on areas they are more familiar or care about more. Otherwise, we could spend eternity just arguing back and forth about "what really matters" instead of making progress in any specific area.

 

I posted some evidence earlier that SOMETHING is wrong:

In any case, some other studies worth looking into/discussing:

http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/psp-a0035663.pdf

"We find converging evidence that Black boys are seen as older and less innocent and that they prompt a less essential conception of childhood than do their White same-age peers. Further, our findings demonstrate that the Black/ape association predicted actual racial disparities in police violence toward children. These data represent the first attitude/behavior matching of its kind in a policing context. Taken together, this research suggests that dehumanization is a uniquely dangerous intergroup attitude, that intergroup perception of children is underexplored, and that both topics should be research priorities."

http://fairandimpartialpolicing.com/docs/pob2.pdf

"Using a simple videogame, the effect of ethnicity on shoot/don’t shoot decisions was examined. African American or White targets, holding guns or other objects, appeared in complex backgrounds. Participants were told to “shoot” armed targets and to “not shoot” unarmed targets. In Study 1, White participants made the correct decision to shoot an armed target more quickly if the target was African American than if he was White, but decided to “not shoot” an unarmed target more quickly if he was White. Study 2 used a shorter time window, forcing this effect into error rates. Study 3 replicated Study 1’s effects and showed that the magnitude of bias varied with perceptions of the cultural stereotype and with levels of contact, but not with personal racial prejudice. Study 4 revealed equivalent levels of bias among both African American and White participants in a community sample. Implications and potential underlying mechanisms are discussed."

~

Again, none of this suggests there aren't MORE or OTHER issues out there also worth caring about. So let's stop pretending that someone who cares about X cannot care about Y.

Maybe there isn't REALLY a problem, but the data suggests to me that it's worth at least talking about, rather than outright dismissing any possibility that there is an issue.

 

I understand that you are talking generally, but at least in the context of this current discussion, I am pretty sure that I, personally, haven't attacked or threatened you based on your skin color (in fact, I am not even sure WHAT ethnicity you are - I only know we both like similar anime, haha), yet you still react as though I did, and haven't discussed or answered queries/evidence that there might be a problem?

Isn't this exactly the opportunity that you would have wanted? To discuss the potential issue without feeling specifically attacked due to your skin color?

 

I have clearly demonstrated that this isn't true.

Considering that there are significantly blacks in the US than in Europe, it's not surprising that in many European countries there are fewer blacks in elected office than in the US where blacks up a greater % of the population (Blacks are about 13% of US population, and about 3% in France and the UK, for example).



Anyway, a small random selection of black Europeans in prominent positions in modern history:


Christiane Taubira
French Minister of Justice: 16 May 2012 – 27 January 2016



Kofi Yamgnane
Mayor of Brittany 1989
French Secretary of State 1991-1993
French Parliment 1997-2002


Patricia Janet Scotland
Baroness Scotland of Asthal since April 2016


Bernard Francisco Ribeiro
President of the Royal College of Surgeons of England: 2005 to 2008
House of Lords since 2010

In other places, like Sweden where it is 90% Swedish, it seems reasonable that most politicians or high office will be held by Swedish people. With a population of 9.5 million, there are only ~50k blacks or around 0.5% of the population.

Even still, they have had in office recently:



Nyamko Sabuni
Minister of Intregration and Gender Equality
6 October 2006 – 21 January 2013



Alice Bah Kuhnke
Minister of Culture and Democracy
Since 3 October 2014

So this is an incorrect conclusion based on the wrong assumptions and ignoring context.

~

I may look into it more, but the research I just did to answer this question suggests to me that blacks are possibly even OVERrepresented in European government based on how few of them there are over there (this is NOT based on any rigorous analysis, just a feeling based on the little I looked into it). I was also surprised by the number of women I came across.

 

I disagree with most of this. The idea that people can't care about specific issues without "dividing" is absurd. We all care about various things to various degrees - it doesn't immediately divide anyone.

When someone says "blacks are being profiled" or whatever, people largely react one of 2 choices:

• You can act defensive, and claim that "All Lives Matter" or "Whites are profiled too!" or that the "narrative is bankrupt" or whatever
• You can act empathetic, and discuss what is happening (and maybe it turns out it isn't)
  • If it IS happening, what we can do about it
  • And does it also impact other groups in a similar fashion?

Guess which is divisive? The one that wants to "one up" the other and be dismissive of the concerns of the other (even if it's couched as caring about more, but doesn't actually demonstrate it).

I mean, if you actually think their problems are your problem, why are you working so hard to be dismissive of their problems simply because of the way they are asking for help?

Who claimed this, exactly? Have you heard non-extreme members of BLM or someone here claim this?

"Black lives matter to the exclusion of other lives" is not a phrase I have EVER heard uttered EXCEPT as a strawman argument made by those who say "All Lives Matter." It's simply an attempt to make issue a racially divisive one while pretending to be inclusive.