IF YOU DONT LIKE THAT YOU DONT LIKE (UPDATE: he fired himself)

[Chandan]

I don't buy the reddit explanation. he's implying that the phrase carries an implicit 'too' but that's just his presumption, no one can prove that

Indeed. They could have easily added the too to the slogan and it would have been so effective at conveying the message almost no one would disagree. Instead they did this.

This is exactly what white privilege and what modern racism looks like. Instead of taking it as an opportunity to learn about the movement, to understand the systematic suppression that minorities face, they are criticizing the grammar of it for not being clear enough to them, and they think the white man who works in media doesn’t know what ALM mean in this context, even though all those players actually met him.

You guys can play dumb all you want, but it’s pretty obvious what type of people would want to downplay BLM.

No racist people ever think they are racist.

Have you ever considered that you are a racist towards the whites? because that's what it looks like. I FEEL like you dont like white people, that's enough to call someone a racist right?

sort of trolling you, but you need to understand that it's stupid to just throwing accusations around. You need to understand the logistic of things. Does using ALM make you a racist, or are they racists before saying ALM? There are white people that hear BLM and legit just wants their share of pie and be included. It doesn't mean they dont think black lives matters. They might not be your cup of tea, but dont make these people your enemies.

You can't expect people to denounce their own racial identity to cater to your movement's agenda. It just doesn't work like that. Everyone are different, even their capacity of kindness. It doesn't help your cause to go around and call people racists when they can't conceptually put someone else before themselves. Petty maybe. again, not racist, not your enemy.

[wutevahung]

Indeed. They could have easily added the too to the slogan and it would have been so effective at conveying the message almost no one would disagree. Instead they did this.

This is exactly what white privilege and what modern racism looks like. Instead of taking it as an opportunity to learn about the movement, to understand the systematic suppression that minorities face, they are criticizing the grammar of it for not being clear enough to them, and they think the white man who works in media doesn’t know what ALM mean in this context, even though all those players actually met him.

You guys can play dumb all you want, but it’s pretty obvious what type of people would want to downplay BLM.

No racist people ever think they are racist.

Have you ever considered that you are a racist towards the whites? because that's what it looks like. I FEEL like you dont like white people, that's enough to call someone a racist right?

sort of trolling you, but you need to understand that it's stupid to just throwing accusations around. You need to understand the logistic of things. Does using ALM make you a racist, or are they racists before saying ALM? There are white people that hear BLM and legit just wants their share of pie and be included. It doesn't mean they dont think black lives matters. They might not be your cup of tea, but dont make these people your enemies.

You can't expect people to denounce their own racial identity to cater to your movement's agenda. It just doesn't work like that. Everyone are different, even their capacity of kindness. It doesn't help your cause to go around and call people racists when they can't conceptually put someone else before themselves. Petty maybe. again, not racist, not your enemy.

I said it multiple times already, if you say ALM without knowing what it really means, then you are ignorant, but probably not a racist. If you know the context and still say it’s a valid responds then yes you are racist. The worst is the unwillingness to understand and accept what you don’t know. After many people explained the message behind BLM and ALM in this thread, if one still doesn’t understand the difference, then he simply chooses to misunderstand and misinterpret it on purpose.

You do not get to defined what ALM means. You might have a literal definition for yourself, but society as a whole knows ALM is downplaying and dismissing BLM, and you are just here complaining about how society as a whole misunderstood the context. Ok, maybe you didn’t know before, but now you know, and your opinion hasn’t changed, that’s why I am done giving you the benefit of doubts.

There are white people who want their share of pies, eh... sure, but you do know that in this case, the pie is equality right?

No one is asking anyone to put anyone above themselves , or to denounce their own racial identity, but apparently, that is your think of BLM, so we don’t have much to discuss.

[DavidSterned]

Yes, it was a murder that received less coverage and therefore the reaction to it wasn't of the same magnitude as the reaction to George Floyd's death. I never said otherwise. What I've been, though, is that it was the BLM movement who called this murder out as an outrage. It was the BLM movement who protested for it. It was the BLM movement who did anything about it. Did the "All Lives Matter" folks do anything about that murder? No, they didn't.

You do realize that "All Lives Matter" isn't even the patchwork of an organization, right? It's literally just a slogan, and unless you went to that comparatively tiny demonstration and asked each of them if they'd ever uttered that phrase, I don't know how you would even begin to quantify that. If you're trying to establish some level of consistency then we do also know that BLM generally wasn't consistent on the matter, since the vast majority of people aligned under the umbrella were nowhere to be found at any protest and made no effort to organize marches. It's perfectly understandable why that would give the outside impression to folks that they do, in fact, place less priority on protesting a non-black death (and subsequent acquittal). It is what it is.

I disagree that prejudice and human bias are inherent. I do agree that they are at times difficult to quantify and identify as sometimes they operate at a subconscious level. As for identifying them, social justice movements have been doing a lot of work on that aspect. The subject of implicit biases and how we can identify them and recognize how they're affecting our actions is a pretty well-talked about topic. If you have chosen to ignore that and not partake on this discussion, that's not on them, that's on you.

Bias and prejudice are interlocked with how we have evolved as a species, we are hard-wired to categorize and generalize from an early age in ways to make us feel protected, and in various ways we still teach ourselves to classify others as "outsiders" or "insiders" based on at times superficial traits.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evolution-of-prejudice/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15898874/

Implicit biases are literally universal, myself and yourself included. Sorry that you're not special. Many of us, however, can learn to move well beyond some of our primordial instincts and have the capacity to reach a nuanced understanding of one another that transcends the laziest ways of intellectual stereotyping and pigeonholing. But it is pure delusion to imply that we are ever going to abandon it completely. Denying you have biases won't make them go away. Nor will relying on the most primitive levels of tribalism and resorting to a racial or political deconstruction of every single topic.

Progress will come from the people that are fighting for it. It will come from the people that want to make a positive change in the world and have ideas on how they'll achieve it. On the topic of police brutality, ending Qualified Immunity and de-militarizing the US Police is a good start. Finding a way to break the culture of impunity that has been bred in police precincts will also help.

I can say with certainty that progress will NOT come from those that are fighting against it and those who want to preserve the current status quo.

A vast majority of people want to make changes they see as positive. DUH. That seems like it should be common sense, most people don't want to regress as a society. Whether you choose to agree with their idea of "positive" or not is up to you. But demonizing people for holding any sort of different view is the hallmark of the ad hominem laced, utterly lazy thinking of today. And it makes you just as bad as what you claim to be against (e.g. bigotry).

I support ending or at least seriously amending the judicial interpretation of qualified immunity and there are going to be legislative efforts to do so. It affects more than just cops and other government officials regularly hide behind it.

De-militarizing the police is a vague blanket statement and would need more elaboration. Do cops need tanks and grenade launchers? Absolutely not. Do they need access to automatic weapons, SWAT team mobilization, and riot police? Absolutely. Crime has significantly gone down the last 25 years in America and better policing methods are certainly part of it, though hardly the sole cause. Do you actually know anything about what the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s were like in America with violent crime rates literally twice as high as they are today?

How can we definitively know that George Floyd's race played a role in his death? For starters, we can look at the statistics that you talked about above. Here's an example of those statistics -> https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/

As you can see, it is pretty clear that black people are more likely to be killed by the police. As the website says, it is 3 times more likely for black people to be killed by the police than it is for white people. The website also points out that black people are 1.3 times more likely than white people to be unarmed when killed by the police.

Oof. Several things here. First, your idea of "definitive evidence" in this case is that it happens elsewhere with other cops? The existence or even prevalence of racial bias in policing would be immaterial to this case. Not something that would stand up in court. Correlation is not causation and thus you can offer me nothing here but idle speculation (founded on bias). That's all we have right now, unfortunately. We do know that Chauvin had 18 prior complaints, including at least one civil rights violation, and the details of those cases may be key in establishing a pattern of him showing racial bias. I'm not saying Floyd's killing was or wasn't racially motivated. The point is we still don't know, and you just offered me nothing.

Next... control variables. Get to know them. Blacks have far higher arrest rates than whites for violent crime (7-8x higher) and far higher arrest rates overall (2-3x higher). You can't ignore these variables just because they are inconvenient to your beliefs. These control factors must be included in any study that examines overall police encounters. What we do know is that blacks are killed at a higher rate by cops (2-3x higher) and there is very mixed research on there being an identifiable link between racial bias and the use of lethal force, but studies on it are increasing. Here for example, a recent Stanford study

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/703541

concluded this based on 2015 data that examined 1200 police killings

This paper demonstrates that, as a whole, the police are killing white and black decedents under very similar circumstances. Even with advanced machine learning techniques and the high-dimensional PKAP data set, it is not possible to predict decedents’ race more accurately than naïve assignment. These null results suggest that the threefold racial difference in the rate of police killings is most likely due to disproportionate African American contact with the police, rather than racial differences in the circumstances of the interaction or bias in officers’ decision to use lethal force. Though these findings lend support to the contact-based explanations in the literature, including those which point to racial bias in the initiation of police contact, the variable importance results also indicate that further research is needed to identify why the disproportionate contact is occurring under such a wide array of circumstances.

Now, this doesn't examine non-lethal force and I would imagine that non-whites would report higher rates of excessive non-lethal force from police. Data on that subject is still pretty iffy but I think it's fair to assume that, at the very least, blacks feel that police are far more abusive to them than whites do and I do believe those opinions should hold plenty of merit in any study.

So, really, what more do you need other than the fact that it actually happens? Do you believe that what the stats above imply is merely coincidence?

We all saw the video of George Floyd's murder. We all saw his murderer, Derrick Chauvin, employ excessive force against a man who was unarmed and complying with their instructions. We all saw Chauvin ignore Floyd's cries that he couldn't breathe anymore and we all saw him keeping his knee on Floyd's neck until he was dead. Every bit of it is caught on video.

We all know that black people are disproportionately targeted by police brutality. We have seen it happen time and time again. I'll ask again. Do you honestly believe that this is a coincidence? Because I believe that it is indicative of a culture of systemic racism in the gulfs of the US police.

I believe that Chauvin is a bad cop who belongs in jail for the killing, which is exactly where he is for the time being. Beyond that I'm not going to pretend to know what his racial views are. I hope you can shed some light on them since you seem to profess assurance.

You say that "without tangible evidence this isn't a convincing starting point for formulating changes". And I'm going to be 100% honest with you. There's never going to be a convincing starting point for you. Never. You are here, disputing an incident that was as clear as day. The last few days have laid police brutality bare. Everyone can see it now as police officers have been filmed attacking peaceful protesters and journalists without provocation time and time again. And yet, you have your head in the sand.

If your stunning assessment of my views is that I am "disputing the incident" ( ) or that I think that police brutality doesn't exist or that racial biases play no part in any of it, then you are sorely mistaken.

And there are plenty, and I mean plenty, of instances of deplorable cop behavior and deplorable protester behavior from the past week. To argue it any other way would be shameful.

Actually, activist movements do formulate workable plans. Both the Occupy Movement and the BLM have made several proposals on what they want to see change. You have just chosen to ignore it because as I said before:

Occupy actually offered almost nothing tangible and its lasting image is police clearing fecal-entrenched camps months later while the rest of the world worked.

BLM still has a great chance to offer some tangible reforms but it has to mature and there needs to be far more coherent leadership and salient conversation and far less "F*ck the police" and "Fry piggy, fry!".

It's also ironic how you say that intellectualism should not go out of the window and try to portray this as something that is happening within left-leaning social movements while, in reality, the massive rise in anti-intellectualism is phenomenon that is seen almost entirely on the right, particularly among the ardent supporters of your President. Frankly, you are just projecting here.

Ooof x2. Again guilty of a hasty generalization and either/or fallacious thinking. You'd be embarrassed to know that in my "projecting", I believe that Donald Trump is the archetypal purveyor and walking, talking, babbling epitome of the decline in intellectualism. His mere existence as the chief executive of our country is a total sham and a national disgrace. He offers absolutely nothing in terms of forwarding any productive dialog, very likely suffers from some clinical form of narcissism, and he has an army of sycophants who regularly employ the same tactics.

And yet you'd be asinine to believe that the left hasn't become incredibly polarized in its own right, and guilty of many of the same tactics. Echo chambers are held in esteem now. The country's current political landscape is a literal playground full of screaming, whiny, imbecilic children. Trump is right there at the front of it, pushing someone off the swing set.

So don't assume you can throw your easy labels on me, chief.

Really, that's what you see? Once again:

Cute pic, you really like to wear your jokes and wear them out!

Activists have proposals. Just ask them about their proposals and they'll tell you all about them. What you're describing above is not what actually happens out there. You have chosen to construct your own reality and, once again, stick your head in the sand.

Don't get me wrong, living in your own reality is absolutely your right. Just don't try and use that made-up reality against the rest of society.

Regardless of what you think Joe Buttcrack on the street would say, there's a real gulf in finding tangible proposals from a group that has had as much time to mobilize as BLM. The last significant policy info is a story from 4 years ago

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/black-lives-matter-releases-policy-agenda-n620966

that literally links us to a now empty Tumblr post.

http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fpolicy.m4bl.org&t=N2U4ODAzNzViOTI0NDJmZTExMzMyYjFmNWFiOGQyMmQ5YmI0MDcxOSxCWEMwd3RJNQ%3D%3D

The article then goes on to list some fairly radical ideas that, quite frankly, are DOA in every way possible.

Pretty disappointing and we're going to need to see a lot more coherent leadership from someone there before any real progress can happen. You are similarly free to live amidst the fantasy that that notion is a fantasy. But I guess that's just too bad.

[Johnny Bball]

I dont know this guy at all so I can't speak for him. He could be a jerk for all I know.

With that said just coming from a logic point of view I do not believe many racists actually believe "all lives matter" even if some say it. That does not mean that some racists do not say that. I just would not assume someone was a racist for saying it. A KKK guy or a Nazi guy does not believe Black, Jewish, Gay, Hispanic, etc lives matter at all in my opinion. I doubt we would ever hear Hitler saying "all lives matter". There is legit racism and bigotry in this world. I do not think we have much chance of fixing that if we focus so much on the trees (small things) but miss the forest (big things). If I asked a 2nd grade class if black lives matter they would say yes. If I asked a 2nd grade class if all lives matter they would say yes. Point is they would not automatically be racist for saying that. I think we have to look at peoples hearts and actions much more than sayings, phrases, or hastags if we really want to become a fairer society.

Let's just hope you aren't a teacher, for their sake. And if you don't get it, why even talk.

That is a very well thought out and logical way to discuss this subject. Thank you.

What are you talking about. People have explained over and over why it's offensive and you're still being a donkey about it. You don't say ALM (or defend it) after you've had it explained so many times to you unless you feel a need to marginalize the intent of it further, and yeah it's coming across as racist.

Mods, get a hold on this please.

[Chandan]

I said it multiple times already, if you say ALM without knowing what it really means, then you are ignorant, but probably not a racist. [b]If you know the context and still say it’s a valid responds then yes you are racist. The worst is the unwillingness to understand and accept what you don’t know. After many people explained the message behind BLM and ALM in this thread, if one still doesn’t understand the difference, then he simply chooses to misunderstand and misinterpret it on purpose.

You do not get to defined what ALM means. You might have a literal definition for yourself, but society as a whole knows ALM is downplaying and dismissing BLM, and you are just here complaining about how society as a whole misunderstood the context. Ok, maybe you didn’t know before, but now you know, and your opinion hasn’t changed, that’s why I am done giving you the benefit of doubts.

There are white people who want their share of pies, eh... sure, but you do know that in this case, the pie is equality right?

No one is asking anyone to put anyone above themselves , or to denounce their own racial identity, but apparently, that is your think of BLM, so we don’t have much to discuss.

Society as a whole? If the society is so in agreement as you feel then trump wouldn't have been elected president. There are legit white people out there who just wants to be included and represented and you dont feel they should be able to even speak on it. When they say ALM, they've already acknowledge the fact that black lives DO matter. Some are just demonstrating "what about me??" Then you say, hey that's not enough. I want you to BELIEVE IT otherwise you are an enemy of the movement and you are IGNORANT and you are being DISMISSIVE thus you are a BAD PERSON. That's unreasonable to do to a whole demographic of people. You should be old enough to know people dont like it when you tell them they are not allowed to do something. At least that's not the way to go about it when you want to inspire real change.

In the end, your goal is to change minds and promote empathy. The best way to do that is to stop antagonizing people and understand where they come from. You can't expect the entire population to be "woke" all of a sudden. Not everyone are exposed to the heart of the issue and feel as strongly about it as you do. BLM shouldn't penalize them for it by labeling them ignorant or racist.

Like I've said before, find some real **** to be outraged at. Then the world will back you up. But I won't join in with your thought police act.