1 2 3 >  Last ›
 
   
 

A hypothetical conversation

 
DEGENERATEON
 
Avatar
 
 
DEGENERATEON
Total Posts:  507
Joined  14-09-2017
 
 
 
07 July 2020 20:51
 

A:  “Black lives matter!”
B:  “All lives matter.”
A:  “You don’t get it, and that’s equivalent to a dog whistle.  The fact is that we’re focusing on black lives because they are under attack, they are not valued the same, and there’s no justice for taking a black life.”
B:  “It doesn’t seem that what you are saying is true.  From peer reviewed studies and data, it seems whites are more likely to be shot by police than blacks.”
A:  “Yes but the problem isn’t just the police, black people are dying at the hands of white citizens.”
B:  “Blacks kills twice as many whites as whites kill blacks.  How does the focus on black lives make sense in that scenario?”
A:  “The problem is that whites don’t face justice when they kill blacks.”
B:  “That doesn’t seem to be the case either.  Do you have any evidence of this?”
A:  “You’re a racist!  Why can’t you just say black lives matter?!”
B:  “Ok, how about all black lives matter?”
A:  “Yes, but you don’t have to qualify that, it’s obvious from the statement.  Black lives matter.”
B:  “So then you would be concerned by the overwhelming threat to black lives, right?”
A:  “What are you talking about?”
B:  “Black on black crime.  Blacks commit 50% of the homicide in the US, but they’re only 13% of the population.  And over 90% of those murders are other blacks.”
A:  “Why are you changing the subject?  You’re just trying to distract from what we’re talking about.”
B:  “I thought we were talking about all black lives.”
A:  “We’re not talking about that, that’s another topic.  We’re talking about police brutality and systemic racism.”
B:  “Oh, so the phrase ‘black lives matter’ isn’t really talking about all black lives, and isn’t even necessarily talking about some black lives?”
A:  “You don’t get it.  We’re talking about the structure of America.  Black people are harassed and beaten by the police.”
B:  “Well what if the black on black murder and crime was brought down, do you think that would also result in a lower interaction rate with the police?  And logically lower the instances of brutality and police shootings?”
A:  “That’s not going to change the fact that blacks are subject to more brutality.  The numbers may come down but the rate will still be higher because of racism.”
B:  “Are you sure it’s racism?  If blacks are committing 50% of murder and over 50% of violent crime, don’t you think there would be a focus on that group?  I mean, it may not be fair, it may be an overreaction - but surely you can see that there would be more of a focus on that group?”
A:  “Yeah - it’s called profiling - racism!”
B:  “So basically, what are you protesting about?”

 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  182
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
07 July 2020 23:09
 

When you choose the arguments you are refuting, I guess your position would seem unassailable.

 
DEGENERATEON
 
Avatar
 
 
DEGENERATEON
Total Posts:  507
Joined  14-09-2017
 
 
 
08 July 2020 05:51
 
weird buffalo - 07 July 2020 11:09 PM

When you choose the arguments you are refuting, I guess your position would seem unassailable.

Tell that to Plato.

 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3926
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
08 July 2020 06:31
 

“We wouldn’t have to have Black Lives Matter if we didn’t have 300 years of black lives don’t matter.”—Jane Elliott, Anti-Racism Activist

If you haven’t lived it, you can’t know it.

 
 
DEGENERATEON
 
Avatar
 
 
DEGENERATEON
Total Posts:  507
Joined  14-09-2017
 
 
 
08 July 2020 07:48
 
bbearren - 08 July 2020 06:31 AM

“We wouldn’t have to have Black Lives Matter if we didn’t have 300 years of black lives don’t matter.”—Jane Elliott, Anti-Racism Activist

If you haven’t lived it, you can’t know it.

“For the discussion we really need to have, the color of a person’s skin, and even his life experience - simply does not matter.  It can not matter.  We have to break the spell that the politics of identity has cast over everything.”  -Sam Harris

“People by the millions are now surrendering themselves to a kind of religious awakening, but like most religious awakenings, this movement is not showing itself eager to make honest contact with reality.”  -Sam Harris

 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  182
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
08 July 2020 08:55
 
DEGENERATEON - 08 July 2020 05:51 AM
weird buffalo - 07 July 2020 11:09 PM

When you choose the arguments you are refuting, I guess your position would seem unassailable.

Tell that to Plato.

Ah, because Plato used strawman arguments and arrived at awful conclusions, therefore we should all use strawman arguments to arrive at awful conclusions.

edit: and I’m being a bit hyperbolic here.  Many of the arguments that Plato defeats in his dialogues are not very strong.  Giving him the greatest charitable reading, those were the best arguments at the time though.  With that understood then,  your dialogue above does not present the strongest arguments at this time.  You are using weak arguments.  From that I can arrive at one of two conclusions:

1) you aren’t aware of the strong arguments
2) you are intentionally using weaker arguments

There are a third and fourth options, but you didn’t choose them.
3) use the strong arguments
4) do nothing

[ Edited: 08 July 2020 09:24 by weird buffalo]
 
DEGENERATEON
 
Avatar
 
 
DEGENERATEON
Total Posts:  507
Joined  14-09-2017
 
 
 
08 July 2020 09:38
 
weird buffalo - 08 July 2020 08:55 AM
DEGENERATEON - 08 July 2020 05:51 AM
weird buffalo - 07 July 2020 11:09 PM

When you choose the arguments you are refuting, I guess your position would seem unassailable.

Tell that to Plato.

Ah, because Plato used strawman arguments and arrived at awful conclusions, therefore we should all use strawman arguments to arrive at awful conclusions.

edit: and I’m being a bit hyperbolic here.  Many of the arguments that Plato defeats in his dialogues are not very strong.  Giving him the greatest charitable reading, those were the best arguments at the time though.  With that understood then,  your dialogue above does not present the strongest arguments at this time.  You are using weak arguments.  From that I can arrive at one of two conclusions:

1) you aren’t aware of the strong arguments
2) you are intentionally using weaker arguments

There are a third and fourth options, but you didn’t choose them.
3) use the strong arguments
4) do nothing

Let’s have our own dialogue then.  Some on this forum consider “All lives matter” to be a racist statement, or at best a tone deaf statement.  At the same time, they seem to have a hard time with the statement “All black lives matter”.  Do you have an issue with that statement and it’s implications?  If you do, then why?

 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  182
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
08 July 2020 09:45
 

You’re going to have to give me more to go on.

I don’t have a problem with the words “blood” and “soil”, but the historical context of the phrase “Blood and Soil” as a rallying cry for the literal Nazi party in the 1930’s means that anyone using it should be viewed under suspicion.

What is the purpose and context of saying “all black lives matter” or “all lives matter”?

 
DEGENERATEON
 
Avatar
 
 
DEGENERATEON
Total Posts:  507
Joined  14-09-2017
 
 
 
08 July 2020 09:58
 
weird buffalo - 08 July 2020 09:45 AM

You’re going to have to give me more to go on.

I don’t have a problem with the words “blood” and “soil”, but the historical context of the phrase “Blood and Soil” as a rallying cry for the literal Nazi party in the 1930’s means that anyone using it should be viewed under suspicion.

What is the purpose and context of saying “all black lives matter” or “all lives matter”?

The implications of “all black lives matter” should be apparent from the fake dialogue in the original post.  The purpose is to call out the evasive action by those who support black lives matter.  BLM doesn’t focus on all black lives, only on black lives taken by whites.  Specifically white police.  So when the data shows that whites are more likely to be shot by the police, and that in citizen interactions blacks kill twice as many whites as whites kill blacks, then the focus shifts to structural racism and police brutality.  But the focus will not shift to the overwhelming source of the ending of black lives. 

Hopefully that explains the purpose and context.  So, if you support BLM - then why only focus on black lives taken by whites?

 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  182
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
08 July 2020 10:03
 

How do you know that BLM only focuses on the lives of black people killed by white police?

If I go to the BLM website and read their about section, I don’t reach the same conclusion you do.

#BlackLivesMatter was founded in 2013 in response to the acquittal of Trayvon Martin’s murderer. Black Lives Matter Foundation, Inc is a global organization in the US, UK, and Canada, whose mission is to eradicate white supremacy and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes. By combating and countering acts of violence, creating space for Black imagination and innovation, and centering Black joy, we are winning immediate improvements in our lives.

We are expansive. We are a collective of liberators who believe in an inclusive and spacious movement. We also believe that in order to win and bring as many people with us along the way, we must move beyond the narrow nationalism that is all too prevalent in Black communities. We must ensure we are building a movement that brings all of us to the front.

We affirm the lives of Black queer and trans folks, disabled folks, undocumented folks, folks with records, women, and all Black lives along the gender spectrum. Our network centers those who have been marginalized within Black liberation movements.

We are working for a world where Black lives are no longer systematically targeted for demise.

We affirm our humanity, our contributions to this society, and our resilience in the face of deadly oppression.

The call for Black lives to matter is a rallying cry for ALL Black lives striving for liberation.

They seem to be opposed to all violence against Black people, but are focused in their actions on institutions and not individuals.  If we take them at their word, then your question no longer makes sense.  For your question to be relevant to the issue, we would have to first misinterpret and strawman their goals and beliefs.

I’m hoping that you aren’t going to move on from this to a different point.  I’m hoping you have evidence to support your claim.

[ Edited: 08 July 2020 10:07 by weird buffalo]
 
DEGENERATEON
 
Avatar
 
 
DEGENERATEON
Total Posts:  507
Joined  14-09-2017
 
 
 
08 July 2020 10:26
 
weird buffalo - 08 July 2020 10:03 AM

How do you know that BLM only focuses on the lives of black people killed by white police?

If I go to the BLM website and read their about section, I don’t reach the same conclusion you do.

#BlackLivesMatter was founded in 2013 in response to the acquittal of Trayvon Martin’s murderer. Black Lives Matter Foundation, Inc is a global organization in the US, UK, and Canada, whose mission is to eradicate white supremacy and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes. By combating and countering acts of violence, creating space for Black imagination and innovation, and centering Black joy, we are winning immediate improvements in our lives.

We are expansive. We are a collective of liberators who believe in an inclusive and spacious movement. We also believe that in order to win and bring as many people with us along the way, we must move beyond the narrow nationalism that is all too prevalent in Black communities. We must ensure we are building a movement that brings all of us to the front.

We affirm the lives of Black queer and trans folks, disabled folks, undocumented folks, folks with records, women, and all Black lives along the gender spectrum. Our network centers those who have been marginalized within Black liberation movements.

We are working for a world where Black lives are no longer systematically targeted for demise.

We affirm our humanity, our contributions to this society, and our resilience in the face of deadly oppression.

The call for Black lives to matter is a rallying cry for ALL Black lives striving for liberation.

They seem to be opposed to all violence against Black people, but are focused in their actions on institutions and not individuals.  If we take them at their word, then your question no longer makes sense.  For your question to be relevant to the issue, we would have to first misinterpret and strawman their goals and beliefs.

I’m hoping that you aren’t going to move on from this to a different point.  I’m hoping you have evidence to support your claim.

They are opposed to all violence against black people?  Can you quote where they discuss black on black murder - aka the colossal and overwhelming cause of death in the black community?  Oh they don’t focus on individuals?  Where are the calls for the city councils, mayors, governors, etc. to do something about this problem?  Please quote in the about section where they discuss this.

“mission is to eradicate white supremacy and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes”

In what way does this mission statement address black on black crime?  Watch Don Lemon explain it - black on black crime is a different topic!  Not all black lives matter to BLM.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzR8x_jlGaI 

 

 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  182
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
08 July 2020 10:40
 

The above quote indicates that they care about all violence against black people.  Do you have evidence to suggest otherwise?  Or are you claiming that silence in this regard should convince of something?  I will point to you that if you say that their silence on the topic is proof of something, it will be very easy for me to peg you with silence on various threads on these forums.  You will be liable for all sorts of beliefs merely because you haven’t commented in opposition to them.

If you insist that you aren’t liable due to your silence, then we will know that your above logic is flawed.

All of that aside though, you are dismissing claims about institutional racism by changing the topic.  By pushing us to instead focus on black on black violence, you are saying that we should not pay attention to police violence.  These two topics are not mutually exclusive, and different things can be true about each of them.  It is possible for both police violence and black violence to be problems.

Unless you have evidence that BLM supports black on black violence, it would seem that you are using this as a red herring to change the topic of the conversation (not this one specifically, but the broader discussion about racism).  Since this is well understood to be an aspect of irrational reasoning, you’ve got quite a hill to climb.

[ Edited: 08 July 2020 10:49 by weird buffalo]
 
DEGENERATEON
 
Avatar
 
 
DEGENERATEON
Total Posts:  507
Joined  14-09-2017
 
 
 
08 July 2020 11:37
 
weird buffalo - 08 July 2020 10:40 AM

The above quote indicates that they care about all violence against black people.  Do you have evidence to suggest otherwise?  Or are you claiming that silence in this regard should convince of something?  I will point to you that if you say that their silence on the topic is proof of something, it will be very easy for me to peg you with silence on various threads on these forums.  You will be liable for all sorts of beliefs merely because you haven’t commented in opposition to them.

If you insist that you aren’t liable due to your silence, then we will know that your above logic is flawed.

All of that aside though, you are dismissing claims about institutional racism by changing the topic.  By pushing us to instead focus on black on black violence, you are saying that we should not pay attention to police violence.  These two topics are not mutually exclusive, and different things can be true about each of them.  It is possible for both police violence and black violence to be problems.

Unless you have evidence that BLM supports black on black violence, it would seem that you are using this as a red herring to change the topic of the conversation (not this one specifically, but the broader discussion about racism).  Since this is well understood to be an aspect of irrational reasoning, you’ve got quite a hill to climb.

I’ll let others examine your logic (or lack thereof) in the response above.  The best argument that I could make to change your mind is contained in the podcast “Can we pull back from the brink”.  If you’ve listened to it, then you should create a thread to point out Sam’s irrational reasoning and describe why he has such a hill to climb. 

 

 
lynmc
 
Avatar
 
 
lynmc
Total Posts:  533
Joined  03-08-2014
 
 
 
08 July 2020 12:35
 
DEGENERATEON - 08 July 2020 11:37 AM
weird buffalo - 08 July 2020 10:40 AM

The above quote indicates that they care about all violence against black people.  Do you have evidence to suggest otherwise?  Or are you claiming that silence in this regard should convince of something?  I will point to you that if you say that their silence on the topic is proof of something, it will be very easy for me to peg you with silence on various threads on these forums.  You will be liable for all sorts of beliefs merely because you haven’t commented in opposition to them.

If you insist that you aren’t liable due to your silence, then we will know that your above logic is flawed.

All of that aside though, you are dismissing claims about institutional racism by changing the topic.  By pushing us to instead focus on black on black violence, you are saying that we should not pay attention to police violence.  These two topics are not mutually exclusive, and different things can be true about each of them.  It is possible for both police violence and black violence to be problems.

Unless you have evidence that BLM supports black on black violence, it would seem that you are using this as a red herring to change the topic of the conversation (not this one specifically, but the broader discussion about racism).  Since this is well understood to be an aspect of irrational reasoning, you’ve got quite a hill to climb.

I’ll let others examine your logic (or lack thereof) in the response above.  The best argument that I could make to change your mind is contained in the podcast “Can we pull back from the brink”.  If you’ve listened to it, then you should create a thread to point out Sam’s irrational reasoning and describe why he has such a hill to climb.

OK, so the BLM folks concentrate their efforts on murders of black people in cases where the murderers are known, and they’re murdered with impunity.  Though not always proven in some of cases there’s apparent racism on the part of the murderer, there’s suspicion of the victim based on no other reason than the color of the victim’s skin.

You seem to think that because so many more black people are murdered by black people (also more white people are murdered by black people than murders by white people of black people with impunity etc., that one shouldn’t really care much about the blacks being murdered with impunity (and likely racism).  Are you saying it’s OK for police or vigilantes to murder black people (and therefore there’s nothing wrong with doing so with impunity), just because of the much larger number of black on black or black on white murders?  Because that’s what you seem to be saying.

Well, of course, in your imaginary conversation, you’ll always win.

 
DEGENERATEON
 
Avatar
 
 
DEGENERATEON
Total Posts:  507
Joined  14-09-2017
 
 
 
08 July 2020 13:49
 
lynmc - 08 July 2020 12:35 PM
DEGENERATEON - 08 July 2020 11:37 AM
weird buffalo - 08 July 2020 10:40 AM

The above quote indicates that they care about all violence against black people.  Do you have evidence to suggest otherwise?  Or are you claiming that silence in this regard should convince of something?  I will point to you that if you say that their silence on the topic is proof of something, it will be very easy for me to peg you with silence on various threads on these forums.  You will be liable for all sorts of beliefs merely because you haven’t commented in opposition to them.

If you insist that you aren’t liable due to your silence, then we will know that your above logic is flawed.

All of that aside though, you are dismissing claims about institutional racism by changing the topic.  By pushing us to instead focus on black on black violence, you are saying that we should not pay attention to police violence.  These two topics are not mutually exclusive, and different things can be true about each of them.  It is possible for both police violence and black violence to be problems.

Unless you have evidence that BLM supports black on black violence, it would seem that you are using this as a red herring to change the topic of the conversation (not this one specifically, but the broader discussion about racism).  Since this is well understood to be an aspect of irrational reasoning, you’ve got quite a hill to climb.

I’ll let others examine your logic (or lack thereof) in the response above.  The best argument that I could make to change your mind is contained in the podcast “Can we pull back from the brink”.  If you’ve listened to it, then you should create a thread to point out Sam’s irrational reasoning and describe why he has such a hill to climb.

OK, so the BLM folks concentrate their efforts on murders of black people in cases where the murderers are known, and they’re murdered with impunity.  Though not always proven in some of cases there’s apparent racism on the part of the murderer, there’s suspicion of the victim based on no other reason than the color of the victim’s skin.

You seem to think that because so many more black people are murdered by black people (also more white people are murdered by black people than murders by white people of black people with impunity etc., that one shouldn’t really care much about the blacks being murdered with impunity (and likely racism).  Are you saying it’s OK for police or vigilantes to murder black people (and therefore there’s nothing wrong with doing so with impunity), just because of the much larger number of black on black or black on white murders?  Because that’s what you seem to be saying.

Well, of course, in your imaginary conversation, you’ll always win.

The imaginary conversation ended. 
“Are you saying it’s OK for police or vigilantes to murder black people (and therefore there’s nothing wrong with doing so with impunity), just because of the much larger number of black on black or black on white murders?  Because that’s what you seem to be saying.”

Of course not.  But when it’s shown that this (murders of blacks with impunity) is so rare as to be nearly insignificant - and the fact that whites are shot and killed by police in the same fashion, what does the argument become? 

“so the BLM folks concentrate their efforts on murders of black people in cases where the murderers are known, and they’re murdered with impunity.”


-Mike Brown.  Attacked the officer and tried to take his gun.  Was reviewed with a fine tooth comb by the DOJ and local authorities, and the officers statements matched the evidence.  Credible witnesses back up the officers story.  How is this murder with impunity?  How is this racism?  Why is this a rallying cry for BLM?  “Hands up don’t shoot!”  Protests, riots, looting, and death.

-Keith Scott.  Was said to have just been reading a book when shot by the police.  A black cop shot Keith because he had a gun and wouldn’t drop it.  Keith’s wife said she was 100% sure this was due to race and that she didn’t believe the officer that shot her husband was black.  She also stated that her husband didn’t own a gun, which was refuted by a text message argument between the two over the gun.  So she blatantly lied about the gun and made this about race.  How is this murder with impunity?  How is this racism?  BLM at the scene.  Protests, riots, looting, and death.

-Alton Sterling.  Was resisting arrest and reaching for a gun in his pocket.  Would not stop resisting and reaching for his gun after being threatened with deadly force.  How is this murder with impunity?  How is this racism?  BLM at the scene.  Protests, riots, looting, and death - including several police officers at the hands of a lunatic that “wanted to kill white people, especially white police officers”.

-Stephon Clark.  Was vandalizing several cars and when police arrived ran into a dark area in his grandparent’s back yard.  Held his cell phone in an shooting stance and approached officers.  Evidence collected clearly indicated that he was suicidal, under the influence of drugs, and was concerned about going back to jail for recent domesitc abuse.  Suicide by cop.  How is this murder with impunity?  How is this racism?  BLM at the scene.  Protests, riots, looting, and probably death.

There’s more to list in BLM’s greatest misses.  It’s also strange that they stand behind the first and greatest miss of all, Mike Brown.  And the ones they got right, well in most cases the officer was charged.  So I’m struggling to figure out what the problem is.  I mean if the list of blacks being murdered by racists with no justice for the victim is like 10 in 10 years, then why is that the focus over thousands of other black lives?  Don’t you find that strange?  Not that there’s no problem with any racist murders, but can we expect racist murders to be zero? Are there any racist murders of whites who don’t receive justice?

What is the list of black victims of racist murders where the victim saw no justice?   

 

[ Edited: 08 July 2020 14:29 by DEGENERATEON]
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3926
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
08 July 2020 15:25
 
DEGENERATEON - 08 July 2020 07:48 AM
bbearren - 08 July 2020 06:31 AM

“We wouldn’t have to have Black Lives Matter if we didn’t have 300 years of black lives don’t matter.”—Jane Elliott, Anti-Racism Activist

If you haven’t lived it, you can’t know it.

” ... the color of a person’s skin, and even his life experience - simply does not matter.  It can not matter. ....”  -Sam Harris

What a way to bring home my point!  That is absolutely, absurdly, the most ridiculous and at once hilarious statement I may have read in years!

 
 
 1 2 3 >  Last ›