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

[Jakay]

Are people seriously pretending that All Lives Matter isn't a thing that people say to try and dismiss BLM?

Come on - don't play stupid

It's just as stupid as thinking anyone who says that is intent on being dismissive.

As much as there is the implied connotation of "Black Live Matter too", I would say a large number of people, perhaps ignorant to the undertone, genuinely mean, "of course they do, because regardless of race or religion all lives matter equally", as an inclusive statement.

And if you don't get that's how some people (not broadcasters who know better) mean it when they say it, then you're as bad as the people you're calling stupid.

Sorry, but this is nonsense. The entire history of "All Lives Matter" is racist/right-wing people attempting to dismiss and belittle the "Black Lives Matter" movement. If you are an American and don't realize this you've been living under a rock.

Well I know that part, but I think you grossly overestimate how much the rest of the world actually gives a **** about the USA these days. It's more like watching a soap opera than anything.

[mashiach]

blacks deserve to be treated better by the police
However I hope they stop some of the violent protests going on. I don't think innocent people deserve to get their car/store destroyed. The genuine protests are being ruined by these people

[RIP Kobe]

all lives matter of course, but that's not the point right now. the focus is on changing how society views black people.

[fianchetto]

No Caucasion would be subject to that...except it happens all the time.

Watch on YouTube

Where to even start? You’re ignoring context. You’re choosing to argue with those suffering in this difficult times.

What are you trying to say? That white people have to go through the same Things as black people? That racism doesn’t exist? That black people aren’t targeted.

ignorant post. Shameful. Just why?

I like to stay out of all this stuff on here. All AussieCeltic was reply to a question that was asked. I understand we are in a very fragile moment, but lets not completely throw out any chance of a discussion because of that. Someone said something like that wouldnt happen to a white person, AussieCeltic showed evidence that something very similar did happen to a white person. That is a very legit response to what was being presented.

I totally get asking for more context of that situation and so on, like an actual legit back and forth discussion with no ill intent (which should never be frowned upon). But to just shoot it down and call it ignorant and shameful for him replying to a very specific statement, is pretty dumb in my opinion. Just saying.

You’re entitled to your opinion and thanks for it because I do respect your opinion. At the same time, I maintain everything I said. If he doesn’t understand he can reply for himself. I’m open to explaining it to them.

[Nuntius]

1. What!? Compare the amount of media attention of that case or any other number of others to this case or to Michael Brown. Compare the levels of protest. Not even close to similar footing. I think that quite literally should speak for itself. I can't even fathom anyone disputing that. Literally just look around any city in America right now.

2. And what point is that, do you think? The media plays a significant role in influencing the public's level of discourse. That includes selectively manipulating information and perpetuating double standards that work in favor of whatever narrative they find most profitable at any given point in time. If you disagree with any of that then by all means enlighten me.

1) You keep talking about the response of the media. I talk about the response of BLM. At this point, we are just talking past each other.

2) Right and the point I'm making is that the US media has been used to fan the flames of racial hatred and perpetuate racial injustice for most of its existence. I don't care if they have change their tune now because they have played a key role at ingraining racial stereotypes at the minds of everyday Americans and thus are partially responsible for the current situation.

1. BLM is not just a few people on a board of trustees who may or may not have held protests. BLM is a huge umbrella and has tons of self-described followers and supporters in every region and large city of the country. The evidence for BLM involved protests being on a smaller scale following the death of Daniel Shaver (or other non-black victims) is pretty self-explanatory. There weren't widespread major demonstrations whatsoever in 2016 or in 2017 when that body-cam footage was released. I understand there are a multitude of reasons for that, but it is still an objective reality.

2. The mass media definitely plays a big part in us wading through the mud, but we must remember that tribalism and prejudice are intrinsic to human nature. It's an ugly reality but that is who we are as a species and no nation or ethnic group in human history is beyond reproach. The problem we see right now is that the power dynamic in this country has shifted increasingly in favor of the few and those few are holding themselves to an even lower standard of accountability than the rest of us (which is already quite low). And the many are being further divided by empty rhetoric that in most cases contributes nothing to tangible progress.

1) Yes, BLM isn't a board of trustees. Neither I nor anyone else have claimed that it is. It's a social movement. And it is that social movement exactly that decried and protested Daniel Shaver's murder. Not the "All Lives Matter" "movement". It was the BLM. Heck, how do you think that a random dude in Greece like me learned about Daniel Shaver's murder? I learned it from people online who either identify with or simply support the BLM and its goals.

2) What are you even trying say here? Honestly, your post is pretty damn convoluted.

You say that tribal and prejudice are intrinsic to human nature. What does that mean, though? Does it mean that we shouldn't try to eliminate prejudice? Does it mean that simply because you consider it to be intrinsic that we shouldn't do anything about it?

You say that the power dynamic in this country has shifted increasingly in favor of the few but you don't name who those few are.

You talk about empty rhetoric that contributes nothing to tangible progress but you don't say what that empty rhetoric is about or what you may consider to be tangible progress.

This part of the post was initially a discussion about the media and its role but, frankly, I'm not sure what it is about now. You may be trying to make a point but all the generalities you've used make that point quite unclear. Can you please clarify what you mean?

[Dnt hate]

Is it really about "Black Lives Matter"?

If it were, what about the ~2,800 homicides every year to black Americans?

90% committed by other African Americans.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3.xls

Why doesn't LeBron ever tweet about that? Do their lives not matter?

It seems like this is actually about "The White Man is at Fault" or "The Police is at Fault" or "[White] America is at fault".

Apparently it's like the N word where if you're black, you're allowed to use it. Likewise if you're black, you're allowed to kill another black person without creating a movement or a protest.

Movement is about racism, not just crime. Obviously black man killing other black man is a crime not based on racist hatred. How can you protest concept of crime, like you protest issue of racism? Unlike crime, racism often is accepted, or at least its overlook, or not seen as criminal, and thats what people protest.

I’m all for protesting targeted police brutality and racist policies, but if we woke up tomorrow and there was no police brutality and no racism, the black community would still be ****. We need the energy we’re seeing right now directed at what’s really ails our communities.

For too long, we have given away our votes to a party that hates us and has infantilized us and made so many of our communities dependent on it. They would never want for their own people and communities what they consider acceptable for black communities knowing full well that the policies helped shape where we are today. And we just give them our vote.

Malcolm X said: “The worst enemy that the Negro have is this white man that runs around here drooling at the mouth professing to love Negros and calling himself a liberal, and it is following these white liberals that has perpetuated problems that Negros have. If the Negro wasn't taken, tricked or deceived by the white liberal, then Negros would get together and solve our own problems. I only cite these things to show you that in America, the history of the white liberal has been nothing but a series of trickery designed to make Negros think that the white liberal was going to solve our problems. Our problems will never be solved by the white man."

And you see today what gets painted as our biggest concern when in reality, our communities have other concerns that keep us from rising and expend our social capital on things like this

Well said man, alot of these ppl throwing out the word racist are too stupid to understand what your saying here

[RoLo]

this thread was a honeypot. u think i and others give a sh*t about grant napear? who actually watches the Kings feed? who even knew who he was before entering here

[madmaxmedia]

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.

So well said, thank you for sharing this.

[DavidSterned]

1) You keep talking about the response of the media. I talk about the response of BLM. At this point, we are just talking past each other.

2) Right and the point I'm making is that the US media has been used to fan the flames of racial hatred and perpetuate racial injustice for most of its existence. I don't care if they have change their tune now because they have played a key role at ingraining racial stereotypes at the minds of everyday Americans and thus are partially responsible for the current situation.

1. BLM is not just a few people on a board of trustees who may or may not have held protests. BLM is a huge umbrella and has tons of self-described followers and supporters in every region and large city of the country. The evidence for BLM involved protests being on a smaller scale following the death of Daniel Shaver (or other non-black victims) is pretty self-explanatory. There weren't widespread major demonstrations whatsoever in 2016 or in 2017 when that body-cam footage was released. I understand there are a multitude of reasons for that, but it is still an objective reality.

2. The mass media definitely plays a big part in us wading through the mud, but we must remember that tribalism and prejudice are intrinsic to human nature. It's an ugly reality but that is who we are as a species and no nation or ethnic group in human history is beyond reproach. The problem we see right now is that the power dynamic in this country has shifted increasingly in favor of the few and those few are holding themselves to an even lower standard of accountability than the rest of us (which is already quite low). And the many are being further divided by empty rhetoric that in most cases contributes nothing to tangible progress.

1) Yes, BLM isn't a board of trustees. Neither I nor anyone else have claimed that it is. It's a social movement. And it is that social movement exactly that decried and protested Daniel Shaver's murder. Not the "All Lives Matter" "movement". It was the BLM. Heck, how do you think that a random dude in Greece like me learned about Daniel Shaver's murder? I learned it from people online who either identify with or simply support the BLM and its goals.

2) What are you even trying say here? Honestly, your post is pretty damn convoluted.

You say that tribal and prejudice are intrinsic to human nature. What does that mean, though? Does it mean that we shouldn't try to eliminate prejudice? Does it mean that simply because you consider it to be intrinsic that we shouldn't do anything about it?

You say that the power dynamic in this country has shifted increasingly in favor of the few but you don't name who those few are.

You talk about empty rhetoric that contributes nothing to tangible progress but you don't say what that empty rhetoric is about or what you may consider to be tangible progress.

This part of the post was initially a discussion about the media and its role but, frankly, I'm not sure what it is about now. You may be trying to make a point but all the generalities you've used make that point quite unclear. Can you please clarify what you mean?

1. You literally posted an op-ed presumably describing the small, local 1 day protest held in Mesa (https://www.12news.com/article/news/local/valley/mesa-rally-for-justice-held-for-daniel-shaver/75-501627698) about the Shaver case and then made the implication of "See, people cared on the same level". To stand by that would be completely disingenous. Here's an op-ed from 2017 saying the literal opposite

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/ej-montini/2017/12/08/what-if-unarmed-daniel-shaver-killed-ex-mesa-cop-had-been-black/935490001/

See how easy that was? At no widescale level whatsoever, including among BLM supporters, were the magnitude of responses remotely comparable. I can't believe I am even having to say this. If you can't concede that then you're clearly operating in bad faith here.

2. My point is that prejudice and human bias are not only inherent but are often incredibly difficult to quantify or even identify, and if we are going to pride ourselves on creating a better system then we first must operate on identifying what we can tangibly improve upon. Otherwise how will progress ever come? Do you think shouting epithets at cops in the streets is going to accomplish it? That means statistics and objective laws should absolutely be given more weight than blind emotion and outrage. An understanding of the past, an understanding of the present, an understanding of the law, and an understanding of the human condition from all sides. George Floyd is the perfect example. As callous as his treatment was, at no point have we actually seen evidence linking his death to race. How could we definitively know? I don't know Derrick Chauvin or what's in his heart. A lot of it is personal bias and assumption that his status as a white cop influenced his racial views somehow. And without tangible evidence of such that personal whim is really not necessarily a convincing starting point for formulating changes.

Empty rhetoric masquerading as activism (Occupy Wall Street being another example) does little more than kick the can down the road until we see another round of protests. Putting your outrage into action and formulating a workable plan on improving things should be the goals, not anarchy. And Intellectualism should not go out the window in favor of tribalism and deconstructing every issue into black/white. That only tends to bring the worst out in people. I AM seeing some signs of progress in places, I know BLM leaders met with police officials in Portland again yesterday for several hours which could be a great start. But far too often we are seeing a bunch of people who are more than ready to lash out in anger but when pressed for offering their ideas they cower. No coherency to it. That's not true activism in my eyes. And that's why, fair or not, a lot of people conflate today's activism with opportunism. It's easy to say you're really for something so your friends will agree that you're woke, but much harder to put your money where your mouth is and value rectifying an issue.

[AdagioPace]

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.

there are way more balanced socio-economical examples in Europe. Italy, Sweden, France are not socialist countries lol!. It seems to me that in the US the word "social" was demonized decades ago, not because it would neutralize the noble principle of "making it alone" but because corporations and the dominant ethnicity had always had the upper hand, making it less convenient for them to change road. The principle you're referring to is completely theoretical because black people in america were literally "released" with a big handicap. It was not a fair competition from the start. If your answer is: "well, life isn't fair", well I can't continue a discussion with somebody who doesn't have certain moral standards...(also a result of a hyper-individualistic society).

PS: It's correct, european nations are largely omogeneous so people of the same ethnicity tend to protect their interests way better. Europe also badly needed to switch to a more social-centre-democratic view of the world in the aftermath of the WWII because there was complete destruction (something the US didn't live) and the gov needed to take care of its people. This didn't stop the economic growth in the first decades. Even neo-liberal politicians in Europe tend to be more sensitive than their american counterpart towards social problems. It's also a difference in terms of mentality and values.

[D.Brasco]

Well he's out:

Read on Twitter

[The Box Office]

Grant Napear went OUT of his way to say "ALL Lives Matter" in response to "BLACK Lives Matter." Why did he replace the word, "BLACK" with "ALL," you understand? Napier chose to dismiss BLM.

To me, Napear knew exactly what he was saying. He had the last 3 months shelter in place and all that to research and read forums about Black Lives Matter. There are many Youtube videos to educate him, too. Racist? Yes, it sounds like it because Napear also went out of his way to talk trash about Kaepernick's knee take. Again, he went out of his way.

Only Chris Webber (and Kings management) truly knows how Napear is with the back stage stuff. They know his history and this latest incident was the one that broke their backs. So they dismissed Napear.

I hate to see anyone losing their jobs, but this man is rich AND white. He'll be fine. I wouldn't worry. Maybe this is a sign for Napear to hang it up. He's washed up anyway. Replace him with fresh younger hip blood.

You know what the new thing is right now? The racists are erasing the word, "BLACK" and "ALL" to just "Lives Matter." To me, "Lives Matter" is the exact same thing as "ALL Lives Matter" because it's speaking in generalities. They thought they were cute. What a bunch of marks. Why do they go out of their way to do this?

Simple: RACISM. They hate black people along with other people of color. They're trying to stomp the fire out.

I'm sorry about Tony Timpa and Justine Ruszczyk. May the Rest in Power as well. Their deaths shouldn't have happened and the cops murdering them address police brutality. Not Black Lives Matter. Black people have it 1000000x worse with cops than Whites. And usually cops are White.

Stop blaming the media. You go outside, right? Observe a cop pulling over someone every time. From my experience, most of the time, the cop is white and the driver is Black, Hispanic, or Asian.

[israelfirst]

"All Lives Matters" is the go-to retort to BLM, and downplaying BLM. It completely misses the point of BLM, racial inequality, and injustice in this country (and around the world). It's speaking from a privileged position where you're unable to grasp or understand the viewpoints of others. It ain't that hard to understand what's wrong there.

lol

[Nuntius]

1. BLM is not just a few people on a board of trustees who may or may not have held protests. BLM is a huge umbrella and has tons of self-described followers and supporters in every region and large city of the country. The evidence for BLM involved protests being on a smaller scale following the death of Daniel Shaver (or other non-black victims) is pretty self-explanatory. There weren't widespread major demonstrations whatsoever in 2016 or in 2017 when that body-cam footage was released. I understand there are a multitude of reasons for that, but it is still an objective reality.

2. The mass media definitely plays a big part in us wading through the mud, but we must remember that tribalism and prejudice are intrinsic to human nature. It's an ugly reality but that is who we are as a species and no nation or ethnic group in human history is beyond reproach. The problem we see right now is that the power dynamic in this country has shifted increasingly in favor of the few and those few are holding themselves to an even lower standard of accountability than the rest of us (which is already quite low). And the many are being further divided by empty rhetoric that in most cases contributes nothing to tangible progress.

1) Yes, BLM isn't a board of trustees. Neither I nor anyone else have claimed that it is. It's a social movement. And it is that social movement exactly that decried and protested Daniel Shaver's murder. Not the "All Lives Matter" "movement". It was the BLM. Heck, how do you think that a random dude in Greece like me learned about Daniel Shaver's murder? I learned it from people online who either identify with or simply support the BLM and its goals.

2) What are you even trying say here? Honestly, your post is pretty damn convoluted.

You say that tribal and prejudice are intrinsic to human nature. What does that mean, though? Does it mean that we shouldn't try to eliminate prejudice? Does it mean that simply because you consider it to be intrinsic that we shouldn't do anything about it?

You say that the power dynamic in this country has shifted increasingly in favor of the few but you don't name who those few are.

You talk about empty rhetoric that contributes nothing to tangible progress but you don't say what that empty rhetoric is about or what you may consider to be tangible progress.

This part of the post was initially a discussion about the media and its role but, frankly, I'm not sure what it is about now. You may be trying to make a point but all the generalities you've used make that point quite unclear. Can you please clarify what you mean?

1. You literally posted an op-ed presumably describing the small, local 1 day protest held in Mesa (https://www.12news.com/article/news/local/valley/mesa-rally-for-justice-held-for-daniel-shaver/75-501627698) about the Shaver case and then made the implication of "See, people cared on the same level". To stand by that would be completely disingenous. Here's an op-ed from 2017 saying the literal opposite

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/ej-montini/2017/12/08/what-if-unarmed-daniel-shaver-killed-ex-mesa-cop-had-been-black/935490001/

See how easy that was? At no widescale level whatsoever, including among BLM supporters, were the magnitude of responses remotely comparable. I can't believe I am even having to say this. If you can't concede that then you're clearly operating in bad faith here.

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.

2. My point is that prejudice and human bias are not only inherent but are often incredibly difficult to quantify or even identify, and if we are going to pride ourselves on creating a better system then we first must operate on identifying what we can tangibly improve upon.

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.

Otherwise how will progress ever come? Do you think shouting epithets at cops in the streets is going to accomplish it? That means statistics and objective laws should absolutely be given more weight than blind emotion and outrage. An understanding of the past, an understanding of the present, an understanding of the law, and an understanding of the human condition from all sides.

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.

George Floyd is the perfect example. As callous as his treatment was, at no point have we actually seen evidence linking his death to race. How could we definitively know? I don't know Derrick Chauvin or what's in his heart. A lot of it is personal bias and assumption that his status as a white cop influenced his racial views somehow. And without tangible evidence of such that personal whim is really not necessarily a convincing starting point for formulating changes.

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.

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.

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.

This is the image that best describes your post:

Empty rhetoric masquerading as activism (Occupy Wall Street being another example) does little more than kick the can down the road until we see another round of protests. Putting your outrage into action and formulating a workable plan on improving things should be the goals, not anarchy. And Intellectualism should not go out the window in favor of tribalism and deconstructing every issue into black/white. That only tends to bring the worst out in people.

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:



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.

I AM seeing some signs of progress in places, I know BLM leaders met with police officials in Portland again yesterday for several hours which could be a great start. But far too often we are seeing a bunch of people who are more than ready to lash out in anger but when pressed for offering their ideas they cower. No coherency to it. That's not true activism in my eyes. And that's why, fair or not, a lot of people conflate today's activism with opportunism. It's easy to say you're really for something so your friends will agree that you're woke, but much harder to put your money where your mouth is and value rectifying an issue.

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



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.

[SactoKingsFan]

Not all that surprised. This is the same guy that stated on his radio show that Donald Sterling wasn't racist because he employed GM Elgin Baylor and coach Doc Rivers.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[Coco Costanza]

If you can't understand the dismissive undertone of saying "all lives matter" then I'm not sure it's worth explaining, you're clearly part of the problem to begin with

All lives matter, if you dont agree with that then you clearly are part of the problem and a racist

To make it simple for you, and the others like you...

Black Lives Matter = Black Lives Matter Too, or Black Lives Also Matter.

Black Lives Matter does not = Only Black Lives Matter, or that no one else matters.

When you say "All Lives Matter", you're implying the other person is saying "Only Black Lives Matter", that they are taking a completely different position than the one they are taking. With the phrase Black Lives Matter, the "all lives matter" is implicit. It goes without saying. But that's why people feel compelled to say "Black Lives Matter", because it is meant as a plea.

Saying "All Lives Matter" dilutes the intended message. It's dismissive.

[AussieCeltic]

How could BLM be dismissive of others when our lives are treated with less importance than others.
It don’t work that way man
It would only be dismissive if everyone’s lives are treated with equal value.

Equality is the very thing black ppl are fighting for

When ALM is brought up, it suggests that everyone’s life is equal..... and we both know that’s not the case e.g. E.g. the death of George Floyd, I’m sure you’d agree that a Caucasian wouldn’t have been subject to that. So where is the equality in lives there???

So when we say BLM it’s because we want the same care/respect that ppl of other races get. and when ppl say ALM as a counter then you’ve take the focus away from the very thing WE are fighting for.

Aren’t we allowed to fight for our equality? Can’t we use a phrase that highlights the people who are at the forefront of the suffering.
Isn’t that okay??

If you think this is some sort of popularity contest then you’re waaaaay off the mark and already missed the point.
And the issues of black lives is a BIG BIG issue, maybe it’s not a big issue to you but for others in America and even around the world, it’s a bloody big issue

No Caucasion would be subject to that...except it happens all the time.

Watch on YouTube

Where to even start? You’re ignoring context. You’re choosing to argue with those suffering in this difficult times.

What are you trying to say? That white people have to go through the same Things as black people? That racism doesn’t exist? That black people aren’t targeted.

ignorant post. Shameful. Just why?

I'm of mixed race and have experienced racism so feel I can speak on this. It's 100% still very prevalent in Australia and United States but let's focus on the real racism. Stats show that cops aren't inherently racist at all. Are there racist cops? heck yeh there are. But not to the level that people think there is. FBI Stats show that out of 10,000 violent crimes committed by either race a white person is MORE likely to be killed by a cop than a black person. To me, that signals that there isn't a race problem WITH THE POLICE. Now you can bring up systematic racism and how that leads to more blacks committing crimes and I'm on your side. But the battle is not with the police.

[RoLo]

In memory of Mr. Napear,

OH BOY!!!

[primecougar]

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/

you got to look at deaths per 1million, since blacks are minority the raw numbers are misleading.

[Galloisdaman]

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.