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

[leolozon]

He is a terrible commentator that I mute when I can.. But what wrong with what he said? I guess you have to be an American leftist to see the racism there..

The problem is that the phrase is generally used AGAINST Black Live Matters, essentially trying to make BLM people seem like the racist ones by saying that everyone is equal, when everyone isn't quite equal. BLM also implicitly means BLM TOO and these people act like that's not what it means by saying that all lives matters. BLM means All Lives Matter,

The USA are such a mess... I've argued with "right wingers" on this (sorry, it's mostly them) and it's going to be hard to make half the country change their mind with this looting and violence going on right now. They'll also start showing you graphs on how many black people kill black people vs how many white people kill black people and tell you that black people only think BLM when it's a white person doing the killing. It's not a great point because black on black crime can be attributed to social and economical factors, but it's something that they'll never accept. So... this debate will always go nowhere.


I don't want to start a big debate, but ...

I personally think that the problem is more poor vs rich than black vs white, and that being poor is actually what makes you more likely to be killed by the police (a rich black man is less likely to be killed by the police than a poor white man)... but some people at the top must be really happy that the debate is always about black vs white, when there's probably a bigger common denominator.

-"“when adjusting for crime, we find no systematic evidence of anti-Black disparities in fatal shootings, fatal shootings of unarmed citizens, or fatal shootings involving misidentification of harmless objects”"
-"What matters is that they fit a stereotype of a poor person, who looks more like a potential criminal."
-"Black citizens are about two times more likely to be killed by police than White citizens (Total OR(B/W) = 2.29). This matches the odds ratio of being Black among poor people (.20/.08 = 2.5)."

https://replicationindex.com/2019/09/27/poverty-explain-racial-biases-in-police-shootings/

Black people in the USA are poorer on average. Being poorer leads to more crime or looking more like a criminal, which leads to being involved with the police more, which leads to more death by bad policing. I'm pretty sure we would find that places with better wealth distribution are less violent societies and have less police killings.

[nikster]

I dont get it, whats wrong what he said?

When Black Lives Matter became a movement the reaction from some vocal contrarian **** became All Lives Matter, essentialy ignoring the point and minimizing the struggles of african americans.

He might not have been racist in his meaning, but at best it is an extremely tonedeaf statement for a public personality to be making

[BoardCrusher]

the racism on this site is unreal

[TheDiesel36]

He is a terrible commentator that I mute when I can.. But what wrong with what he said? I guess you have to be an American leftist to see the racism there..

The problem is that the phrase is generally used AGAINST Black Live Matters, essentially trying to make BLM people seem like the racist ones by saying that everyone is equal, when everyone isn't quite equal. BLM matters also implicitly means BLM TOO and these people act like that's not what it means by saying that all lives matters. BLM means All Lives Matter,

The USA are such a mess... I've argued with "right wingers" on this (sorry, it's mostly them) and it's going to be hard to make half the country change their mind with this looting and violence going on right now. They'll also start showing you graphs on how many black people kill black people vs how many white people kills black people and tell you that black people only think BLM when it's a white person doing the killing. It's not a great point because black on black crime can be attributed to social and economical factors, but it's something that they'll never accept. So... this debate will always go nowhere.


I don't want to start a big debate, but ...

I personally think that the problem is more poor vs rich than black vs white, and that being poor is actually what makes you more likely to be killed by the police (a rich black man is less likely to be killed by the police than a poor white men)... but some people at the top must be really happy that the debate is always about black vs white, when there's probably a bigger common denominator.

-"“when adjusting for crime, we find no systematic evidence of anti-Black disparities in fatal shootings, fatal shootings of unarmed citizens, or fatal shootings involving misidentification of harmless objects”"
-"What matters is that they fit a stereotype of a poor person, who looks more like a potential criminal."
-"Black citizens are about two times more likely to be killed by police than White citizens (Total OR(B/W) = 2.29). This matches the odds ratio of being Black among poor people (.20/.08 = 2.5)."

https://replicationindex.com/2019/09/27/poverty-explain-racial-biases-in-police-shootings/

Black people in the USA are poorer on average, less money leads to more crime or to look more like a criminal, which leads to being involved with the police more, which leads to more death by bad policing. I'm pretty sure we would find that places with better wealth distribution are less violent societies and have less police killings.

Thank you for your thoughtful response.. As a non American that likes to follow the news around the world and especially America, because there are limitless sources of information and I think about moving there after med school, there are a few things that leave me scratching my head. From my outsider point of view I also think that it is more about classism than racism, although in many occasions they go hand in hand. I think this situation in America would be alleviated by restricting easy access to guns. Naturally the police has much more leeway and power when anyone may pull the gun on them any time. That I think attracts a lot of sadists to the police force that really only reduction of power and increased accountability will get rid of. Also I find it incomprehensible that US has for-profit prisons, something like that should definitely be in the hands of the state.

These riots and looting unnecessarily pulls the attention from the train wreck that is Trumps admin coronavirus response and give him one more thing to run on. Combine that with possible economic rebound at the election time and he may well squeak out another victory. And I sincerely hope you guys wont let that happen

And to be on topic a bit, I hope the guy does not continue to call games for the Kings, his punchline is terrible and It has gone on for way too long, time for a change there.

[Kampuchea]

He done messed up. All lives matter is a racist thing.

[Sgt Major]

I saw some numbers of the murders committed by the police divided by race and police kills a significant number of white persons more than black or Hispanic or other people of color, so I don't really get why "all lives matter" is such a big deal.

For example https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

[gabri3l3]

I dont get it, whats wrong what he said?

or.

From a Reddit user’s explanation

Imagine that you're sitting down to dinner with your family, and while everyone else gets a serving of the meal, you don't get any. So you say "I should get my fair share." And as a direct response to this, your dad corrects you, saying, "everyone should get their fair share." Now, that's a wonderful sentiment -- indeed, everyone should, and that was kinda your point in the first place: that you should be a part of everyone, and you should get your fair share also. However, dad's smart-ass comment just dismissed you and didn't solve the problem that you still haven't gotten any!

The problem is that the statement "I should get my fair share" had an implicit "too" at the end: "I should get my fair share, too, just like everyone else." But your dad's response treated your statement as though you meant "only I should get my fair share", which clearly was not your intention. As a result, his statement that "everyone should get their fair share," while true, only served to ignore the problem you were trying to point out.

That's the situation of the "black lives matter" movement. Culture, laws, the arts, religion, and everyone else repeatedly suggest that all lives should matter. Clearly, that message already abounds in our society.

The problem is that, in practice, the world doesn't work the way. You see the film Nightcrawler? You know the part where Renee Russo tells Jake Gyllenhal that she doesn't want footage of a black or latino person dying, she wants news stories about affluent white people being killed? That's not made up out of whole cloth -- there is a news bias toward stories that the majority of the audience (who are white) can identify with. So when a young black man gets killed (prior to the recent police shootings), it's generally not considered "news", while a middle-aged white woman being killed is treated as news. And to a large degree, that is accurate -- young black men are killed in significantly disproportionate numbers, which is why we don't treat it as anything new. But the result is that, societally, we don't pay as much attention to certain people's deaths as we do to others. So, currently, we don't treat all lives as though they matter equally.

Just like asking dad for your fair share, the phrase "black lives matter" also has an implicit "too" at the end: it's saying that black lives should also matter. But responding to this by saying "all lives matter" is willfully going back to ignoring the problem. It's a way of dismissing the statement by falsely suggesting that it means "only black lives matter," when that is obviously not the case. And so saying "all lives matter" as a direct response to "black lives matter" is essentially saying that we should just go back to ignoring the problem.

TL;DR: The phrase "Black lives matter" carries an implicit "too" at the end; it's saying that black lives should also matter. Saying "all lives matter" is dismissing the very problems that the phrase is trying to draw attention to.

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

[Kampuchea]

I’m going to protest the breast cancer walk with a sign that all cancer matters.

[dorkestra]

I’m going to protest the breast cancer walk with a sign that all cancer matters.

People with moustaches generally are trying to tell us that prostate cancer reigns supreme above all other cancers as well. I usually attack these people.

[Noctilux]

He is a terrible commentator that I mute when I can.. But what wrong with what he said? I guess you have to be an American leftist to see the racism there..

Your coach gets it!

[Ontario]

What if you are a socialist? All lives matter is sort of the cornerstone of socialism and my general response when people ask about women's specific issues or LBQT issues, I'm never really trying to disqualify those specific issues when I say that but trying to include them under a wider umbrella and encourage people to look at a larger picture. BLM for sure, I'm canadian, don't let the common perception of Canada fool you there is totally still racism here, blacks as well as other visible minorities do face barriers everyday. The lions share of the racism I see here in Canada is usually directed at our indigenous communities by small minded intolerant jerks who have never gone out into the world further then one stop up the highway.

I love the message of these protests and the guys around the league who are speaking up to offer support.

[bondom34]

I dont get it, whats wrong what he said?

or.

From a Reddit user’s explanation

Imagine that you're sitting down to dinner with your family, and while everyone else gets a serving of the meal, you don't get any. So you say "I should get my fair share." And as a direct response to this, your dad corrects you, saying, "everyone should get their fair share." Now, that's a wonderful sentiment -- indeed, everyone should, and that was kinda your point in the first place: that you should be a part of everyone, and you should get your fair share also. However, dad's smart-ass comment just dismissed you and didn't solve the problem that you still haven't gotten any!

The problem is that the statement "I should get my fair share" had an implicit "too" at the end: "I should get my fair share, too, just like everyone else." But your dad's response treated your statement as though you meant "only I should get my fair share", which clearly was not your intention. As a result, his statement that "everyone should get their fair share," while true, only served to ignore the problem you were trying to point out.

That's the situation of the "black lives matter" movement. Culture, laws, the arts, religion, and everyone else repeatedly suggest that all lives should matter. Clearly, that message already abounds in our society.

The problem is that, in practice, the world doesn't work the way. You see the film Nightcrawler? You know the part where Renee Russo tells Jake Gyllenhal that she doesn't want footage of a black or latino person dying, she wants news stories about affluent white people being killed? That's not made up out of whole cloth -- there is a news bias toward stories that the majority of the audience (who are white) can identify with. So when a young black man gets killed (prior to the recent police shootings), it's generally not considered "news", while a middle-aged white woman being killed is treated as news. And to a large degree, that is accurate -- young black men are killed in significantly disproportionate numbers, which is why we don't treat it as anything new. But the result is that, societally, we don't pay as much attention to certain people's deaths as we do to others. So, currently, we don't treat all lives as though they matter equally.

Just like asking dad for your fair share, the phrase "black lives matter" also has an implicit "too" at the end: it's saying that black lives should also matter. But responding to this by saying "all lives matter" is willfully going back to ignoring the problem. It's a way of dismissing the statement by falsely suggesting that it means "only black lives matter," when that is obviously not the case. And so saying "all lives matter" as a direct response to "black lives matter" is essentially saying that we should just go back to ignoring the problem.

TL;DR: The phrase "Black lives matter" carries an implicit "too" at the end; it's saying that black lives should also matter. Saying "all lives matter" is dismissing the very problems that the phrase is trying to draw attention to.

This is the best explanation of this phrase I've heard, just wanted to say thanks for posting.

[bondom34]

Oh and this tweet reply right after might have been the wildest of the bunch.

Read on Twitter

[Pelon chingon]

#Mexicansaresuperspecialtoo

[RandomRaptorfan]

Funny how you never hear anyone say all lives matter EXCEPT as a retort to someone else saying "black lives matter".

[mastermixer]

I dont get it, whats wrong what he said?

or.

From a Reddit user’s explanation

Imagine that you're sitting down to dinner with your family, and while everyone else gets a serving of the meal, you don't get any. So you say "I should get my fair share." And as a direct response to this, your dad corrects you, saying, "everyone should get their fair share." Now, that's a wonderful sentiment -- indeed, everyone should, and that was kinda your point in the first place: that you should be a part of everyone, and you should get your fair share also. However, dad's smart-ass comment just dismissed you and didn't solve the problem that you still haven't gotten any!

The problem is that the statement "I should get my fair share" had an implicit "too" at the end: "I should get my fair share, too, just like everyone else." But your dad's response treated your statement as though you meant "only I should get my fair share", which clearly was not your intention. As a result, his statement that "everyone should get their fair share," while true, only served to ignore the problem you were trying to point out.

That's the situation of the "black lives matter" movement. Culture, laws, the arts, religion, and everyone else repeatedly suggest that all lives should matter. Clearly, that message already abounds in our society.

The problem is that, in practice, the world doesn't work the way. You see the film Nightcrawler? You know the part where Renee Russo tells Jake Gyllenhal that she doesn't want footage of a black or latino person dying, she wants news stories about affluent white people being killed? That's not made up out of whole cloth -- there is a news bias toward stories that the majority of the audience (who are white) can identify with. So when a young black man gets killed (prior to the recent police shootings), it's generally not considered "news", while a middle-aged white woman being killed is treated as news. And to a large degree, that is accurate -- young black men are killed in significantly disproportionate numbers, which is why we don't treat it as anything new. But the result is that, societally, we don't pay as much attention to certain people's deaths as we do to others. So, currently, we don't treat all lives as though they matter equally.

Just like asking dad for your fair share, the phrase "black lives matter" also has an implicit "too" at the end: it's saying that black lives should also matter. But responding to this by saying "all lives matter" is willfully going back to ignoring the problem. It's a way of dismissing the statement by falsely suggesting that it means "only black lives matter," when that is obviously not the case. And so saying "all lives matter" as a direct response to "black lives matter" is essentially saying that we should just go back to ignoring the problem.

TL;DR: The phrase "Black lives matter" carries an implicit "too" at the end; it's saying that black lives should also matter. Saying "all lives matter" is dismissing the very problems that the phrase is trying to draw attention to.

I’ll probably get flamed for this but whatever.

I have a different feeling about this and don't agree with the terms of this Analogy. This idea that people believe that their should be a "Daddy" ( I guess the government?) that is here to provide for all Americans a "fair share" to everyone is unfathomable to me. There is no "fair share" in life. Some people are born rich some born poor. Some born black, some white or Asian. Some born ugly, some born handsome. Some born tall, some short. There is no such thing a "fair share" biologically or socially.

A better example would be: Imagine you go hunting. Your friend brings a gun his dad gave him. Your cousin brings a knife he bought. A stranger brings crossbow. You don't bring anything. Well guess what?
Is it fair that they are hunting the same prey but they are starting with wepons and you have nothing? No, not exactly.

Does it mean you CAN'T hunt or figure out a way to make a weapon to eat? NO! it's up to YOU to improve your chances to eat. No one else is going to do it for you. They are worrying about themselves. They have their own prey to hunt.

What are your Options? Eat or die.

The American Way is to figure out a way to improve your lot in life. Not rely on society of the government to fix it for you. There will always be someone who was born with more than you. Your job is to the same for your kids.

Just be grateful that you are even in a "Jungle" where there is plenty of opportunity to survive.


If there is a place other than America that is better for those starting with nothing to make something of themselves, I would like to know about it.

[Dnt hate]

I dont get it, whats wrong what he said?

Saying "All lives matter" is a big no-no. It assumes everyone is being treated equally to begin with. He's also white and doesn't understand that he has privileges that black people don't get. You're pretty much asking to get destroyed by the internet if you say it.

What kind of bizarro world do we live in where saying all lives matter is a no no, I'm a minority aswell and I'll say all lives matter over black lives matter wtf

[SK21209]

He is a terrible commentator that I mute when I can.. But what wrong with what he said? I guess you have to be an American leftist to see the racism there..

The problem is that the phrase is generally used AGAINST Black Live Matters, essentially trying to make BLM people seem like the racist ones by saying that everyone is equal, when everyone isn't quite equal. BLM matters also implicitly means BLM TOO and these people act like that's not what it means by saying that all lives matters. BLM means All Lives Matter,

The USA are such a mess... I've argued with "right wingers" on this (sorry, it's mostly them) and it's going to be hard to make half the country change their mind with this looting and violence going on right now. They'll also start showing you graphs on how many black people kill black people vs how many white people kills black people and tell you that black people only think BLM when it's a white person doing the killing. It's not a great point because black on black crime can be attributed to social and economical factors, but it's something that they'll never accept. So... this debate will always go nowhere.


I don't want to start a big debate, but ...

I personally think that the problem is more poor vs rich than black vs white, and that being poor is actually what makes you more likely to be killed by the police (a rich black man is less likely to be killed by the police than a poor white men)... but some people at the top must be really happy that the debate is always about black vs white, when there's probably a bigger common denominator.

-"“when adjusting for crime, we find no systematic evidence of anti-Black disparities in fatal shootings, fatal shootings of unarmed citizens, or fatal shootings involving misidentification of harmless objects”"
-"What matters is that they fit a stereotype of a poor person, who looks more like a potential criminal."
-"Black citizens are about two times more likely to be killed by police than White citizens (Total OR(B/W) = 2.29). This matches the odds ratio of being Black among poor people (.20/.08 = 2.5)."

https://replicationindex.com/2019/09/27/poverty-explain-racial-biases-in-police-shootings/

Black people in the USA are poorer on average, less money leads to more crime or to look more like a criminal, which leads to being involved with the police more, which leads to more death by bad policing. I'm pretty sure we would find that places with better wealth distribution are less violent societies and have less police killings.

When you say black lives matter, I think the objection most on the right have is the implication that a significant portion of the right/white people don't think so. That there's no reason to have to say "black lives matter" unless someone is saying/acting otherwise. That's where the crime statistics come in.

[UcanUwill]

I dont get it, whats wrong what he said?

Saying "All lives matter" is a big no-no. It assumes everyone is being treated equally to begin with. He's also white and doesn't understand that he has privileges that black people don't get. You're pretty much asking to get destroyed by the internet if you say it.

What kind of bizarro world do we live in where saying all lives matter is a no no, I'm a minority aswell and I'll say all lives matter over black lives matter wtf

I honestly didnt know the implication of that, good I learned it, I mean you can make any word or phrase into a bad meaning if its used enough times for certain purposes, so I get their explanation of all lives matter, but at the same time I am not really offended or disgusted by it. Sometimes people want to find offense in everything, I dont really think that guy meant to throw some subtle insult.

[Ontario]

I dont get it, whats wrong what he said?

or.

From a Reddit user’s explanation

Imagine that you're sitting down to dinner with your family, and while everyone else gets a serving of the meal, you don't get any. So you say "I should get my fair share." And as a direct response to this, your dad corrects you, saying, "everyone should get their fair share." Now, that's a wonderful sentiment -- indeed, everyone should, and that was kinda your point in the first place: that you should be a part of everyone, and you should get your fair share also. However, dad's smart-ass comment just dismissed you and didn't solve the problem that you still haven't gotten any!

The problem is that the statement "I should get my fair share" had an implicit "too" at the end: "I should get my fair share, too, just like everyone else." But your dad's response treated your statement as though you meant "only I should get my fair share", which clearly was not your intention. As a result, his statement that "everyone should get their fair share," while true, only served to ignore the problem you were trying to point out.

That's the situation of the "black lives matter" movement. Culture, laws, the arts, religion, and everyone else repeatedly suggest that all lives should matter. Clearly, that message already abounds in our society.

The problem is that, in practice, the world doesn't work the way. You see the film Nightcrawler? You know the part where Renee Russo tells Jake Gyllenhal that she doesn't want footage of a black or latino person dying, she wants news stories about affluent white people being killed? That's not made up out of whole cloth -- there is a news bias toward stories that the majority of the audience (who are white) can identify with. So when a young black man gets killed (prior to the recent police shootings), it's generally not considered "news", while a middle-aged white woman being killed is treated as news. And to a large degree, that is accurate -- young black men are killed in significantly disproportionate numbers, which is why we don't treat it as anything new. But the result is that, societally, we don't pay as much attention to certain people's deaths as we do to others. So, currently, we don't treat all lives as though they matter equally.

Just like asking dad for your fair share, the phrase "black lives matter" also has an implicit "too" at the end: it's saying that black lives should also matter. But responding to this by saying "all lives matter" is willfully going back to ignoring the problem. It's a way of dismissing the statement by falsely suggesting that it means "only black lives matter," when that is obviously not the case. And so saying "all lives matter" as a direct response to "black lives matter" is essentially saying that we should just go back to ignoring the problem.

TL;DR: The phrase "Black lives matter" carries an implicit "too" at the end; it's saying that black lives should also matter. Saying "all lives matter" is dismissing the very problems that the phrase is trying to draw attention to.

If there is a place other than America that is better for those starting with nothing to make something of themselves, I would like to know about it.

Anywhere with universal health care.