I know this is just emphasizing it but I don’t know how anyone saw “white lives matter” as anything other than anti-black rhetoric.
Like, I can believe that a genuinely ignorant but well-intentioned liberal thought “all lives matter” was valid because they were more concerned with being nice than real justice, but “white lives matter” could never be anything other than racist.
“all lives matter” is a reaction from misinterpreting “black lives matter” as “only black lives matter”, rather than its real declaration of “black lives matter too”.
that’s why “all lives matter”, well-intentioned as it may be, is an issue.
It would be lovely if everyone took the time to explain that as nicely as you. Thanks!
It’s not nearly as present in discourse as it used to be, but it wasn’t too long ago that it felt like so many people had internalized the idea that saying “all lives matter” was 100%, no room for nuance, a dogwhistle for racist people who somehow really meant “white lives are the only lives that matter”. Maybe it was for some racist assholes.
I just felt like focusing on any one skin color was limiting. I wasn’t against BLM, I wanted even more!
I’d argue the “issue”/fault for the misinterpretation lies squarely in the poor wording of “black lives matter”. You can’t blame people for misunderstanding what is, objectively, a very vague message.
Not only is “black lives matter” vague, but its whole impetus, police brutality, isn’t even present in that phrase. You’re supposed to just magically know it’s about police treatment of black people.
“All Lives Matter” is a dishonest racist dogwhistle every time it’s used. The fact that all lives matter goes without saying – literally, it doesn’t need to be said. It is not a neutral/symmetrical response to “Black Lives Matter” because “black lives matter” actually does need to be said!
Not every time. I believe that all lives matter, and that the BLM movement is perfectly valid.
I believe that all genders should be treated equally and that the feminist movement is valid as well.
And there are absolutely people who believe that in order to achieve “equality” one group has to be drug down and treated the way the marginalized group was. There are people who honestly believe it’s impossible to be racist against white people, or that men can’t be victims of sexism.
As I said, the problem is when you use your broad belief to say that others can’t focus on a more specific one.
Sure, you believe that all lives matter, so does blm, but are you going to put that on a sign in the United States? Because in the US that phrase is practically exclusively used in response to blm, to dismiss black discrimination. It’s not a phrase that can honestly be taken at face value
The fact that all lives matter goes without saying – literally, it doesn’t need to be said.
Neither does “black lives matter”, to the vast majority of people. It makes perfect sense for the typical person hearing that phrase for the first time to react with confusion. If you explicitly say “black lives matter” to someone, you are, whether you realize it or not, implying to that person that they are racist enough that they don’t believe the lives of black people have value.
If I made a point of telling you “you know, the earth is round”, that implies that I believe that you don’t already believe that (otherwise, why would I be saying it to you?). So a response fueled by confusion/indignance from you would make perfect sense.
people aren’t allowed to focus on systemic violence against a specific demographic.
I honestly don’t understand why there needs to be segregation (pardon the pun) of effort based on immutable characteristics of the victim. Police brutality, for example, is a problem regardless of the victim, and it takes equal effort to call out and protest etc. against it as a whole as to do so with only one demographic of victim in mind.
When it comes down to it, the action is really what matters, not the motive. Let’s say a white guy is murdered by unjustified ‘overzealous policing’, and a black guy is murdered the same way, but only the latter was motivated by racism. Well, they’re both dead for no good reason, and I don’t see how one can objectively consider the former case as somehow less atrocious than the latter just because there wasn’t racism involved.
The behavior is the true problem, and the only thing focusing on specific motivations for that behavior does, is divide people against each other, that should be in solidarity.
It’s because the behavior disproportionately affects certain demographics, and it’s more efficient to focus on one. Plus, depending on the demographic you might tailor your approach to the issue specifically to it.
It’s kinda like saying, “Why donate to breast cancer research instead of general cancer research?”
Also, hate crime charges exist because the driving force behind them is ideologically based. They exist to try to combat that ideology.
And motive is absolutely a factor in what charges get brought.
You wouldn’t charge someone who lost control of a car and killed someone the same as you would someone who planned and murdered their spouse, even though the end result is someone died. Motivation is a key factor.
it’s more efficient to focus on one [demographic].
No, it literally is not.
Explain how this supposed efficiency manifests, since you disagree. How does focusing on one race of victim reduce police brutality more than focusing on police brutality itself, which takes the exact same amount of effort?
It’s kinda like saying, “Why donate to breast cancer research instead of general cancer research?”
This is a false analogy, because cancers are too different to be accurately described as having a single shared fundamental cause to ‘attack’ with research.
A better analogy would be if someone was arguing for gun control by focusing on only cases where the bullet hits a certain body part. In this analogy, I am the one saying “why aren’t we just focusing on the guns themselves, who cares where people are getting shot, the important thing is that they’re getting shot!”
Also, hate crime charges exist because the driving force behind them is ideologically based. They exist to try to combat that ideology.
But there is no conclusive evidence that a criminal charge being ‘enhanced’ as being a hate crime, versus a non hate crime, has had any measurable impact at all on the incidence of said crimes, it’s basically just an ego stroke that doesn’t actually accomplish anything.[1]
What’s the difference between a murder that’s a ‘hate crime’ versus one that isn’t, really? Is the latter victim any less deceased? Is the latter perpetrator any less deserving of punishment?
And motive is absolutely a factor in what charges get brought.
It should be a factor insofar as whether the crime is deliberate or happenstance, but not beyond that (i.e. whether there IS motivation, but when there is, not WHAT the motivation is). Hot Fuzz satirizes (maybe not deliberately, but coincidentally at least) this well, I think—the townspeople are murdered by the cult for absurdly trivial reasons, like having an annoying laugh. Should that triviality lessen the severity of the crimes?
You wouldn’t charge someone who lost control of a car and killed someone the same as you would someone who planned and murdered their spouse, even though the end result is someone died. Motivation is a key factor.
Right, hence my clarification that the existence of motive makes a difference, but within the umbrella of ‘motivated crimes’, what the motive is should make no difference. I say all ‘motivated’ murders are equally heinous, whether the victim was killed because the murderer is bigoted against their race, or because they hate how the victim laughs.
In fact, it arguably makes things worse, as it gives bigotry within the justice system a stealthy tool of discrimination. I did some cursory poking around that seems to show that black people charged with violent crimes are more likely to have ‘hate crime enhancements’ attached to their charges than white people are. All other factors being equal for the sake of argument, this leads to longer average sentences for black convicts than white, for the same crime. ↩︎
I don’t know how anyone saw “white lives matter” as anything
Deliberately out of context, not to misquote you but to say that but this part of the sentence rings true for me, lol. I have never seen “white lives matter” expressed in any significant capacity. Probably saw it written or heard it said less than 10 times since BLM started as a named thing.
I know this is just emphasizing it but I don’t know how anyone saw “white lives matter” as anything other than anti-black rhetoric.
Like, I can believe that a genuinely ignorant but well-intentioned liberal thought “all lives matter” was valid because they were more concerned with being nice than real justice, but “white lives matter” could never be anything other than racist.
All Lives Matter is a perfectly fine position to have, just like thinking that all genders should be treated equally.
The problem is when you try to use that position to say that people aren’t allowed to focus on systemic violence against a specific demographic.
“all lives matter” is a reaction from misinterpreting “black lives matter” as “only black lives matter”, rather than its real declaration of “black lives matter too”.
that’s why “all lives matter”, well-intentioned as it may be, is an issue.
It would be lovely if everyone took the time to explain that as nicely as you. Thanks!
It’s not nearly as present in discourse as it used to be, but it wasn’t too long ago that it felt like so many people had internalized the idea that saying “all lives matter” was 100%, no room for nuance, a dogwhistle for racist people who somehow really meant “white lives are the only lives that matter”. Maybe it was for some racist assholes.
I just felt like focusing on any one skin color was limiting. I wasn’t against BLM, I wanted even more!
It’s not. It was always meant as a dismissal of the movement, nothing more.
I’d argue the “issue”/fault for the misinterpretation lies squarely in the poor wording of “black lives matter”. You can’t blame people for misunderstanding what is, objectively, a very vague message.
Not only is “black lives matter” vague, but its whole impetus, police brutality, isn’t even present in that phrase. You’re supposed to just magically know it’s about police treatment of black people.
Or you could, you know, ask people what they mean when they say it…
“All Lives Matter” is a dishonest racist dogwhistle every time it’s used. The fact that all lives matter goes without saying – literally, it doesn’t need to be said. It is not a neutral/symmetrical response to “Black Lives Matter” because “black lives matter” actually does need to be said!
Not every time. I believe that all lives matter, and that the BLM movement is perfectly valid.
I believe that all genders should be treated equally and that the feminist movement is valid as well.
And there are absolutely people who believe that in order to achieve “equality” one group has to be drug down and treated the way the marginalized group was. There are people who honestly believe it’s impossible to be racist against white people, or that men can’t be victims of sexism.
As I said, the problem is when you use your broad belief to say that others can’t focus on a more specific one.
Sure, you believe that all lives matter, so does blm, but are you going to put that on a sign in the United States? Because in the US that phrase is practically exclusively used in response to blm, to dismiss black discrimination. It’s not a phrase that can honestly be taken at face value
Believing it is one thing. Using it as a retort to someone saying “black lives matter” is entirely another.
Neither does “black lives matter”, to the vast majority of people. It makes perfect sense for the typical person hearing that phrase for the first time to react with confusion. If you explicitly say “black lives matter” to someone, you are, whether you realize it or not, implying to that person that they are racist enough that they don’t believe the lives of black people have value.
If I made a point of telling you “you know, the earth is round”, that implies that I believe that you don’t already believe that (otherwise, why would I be saying it to you?). So a response fueled by confusion/indignance from you would make perfect sense.
I honestly don’t understand why there needs to be segregation (pardon the pun) of effort based on immutable characteristics of the victim. Police brutality, for example, is a problem regardless of the victim, and it takes equal effort to call out and protest etc. against it as a whole as to do so with only one demographic of victim in mind.
When it comes down to it, the action is really what matters, not the motive. Let’s say a white guy is murdered by unjustified ‘overzealous policing’, and a black guy is murdered the same way, but only the latter was motivated by racism. Well, they’re both dead for no good reason, and I don’t see how one can objectively consider the former case as somehow less atrocious than the latter just because there wasn’t racism involved.
The behavior is the true problem, and the only thing focusing on specific motivations for that behavior does, is divide people against each other, that should be in solidarity.
It’s because the behavior disproportionately affects certain demographics, and it’s more efficient to focus on one. Plus, depending on the demographic you might tailor your approach to the issue specifically to it.
It’s kinda like saying, “Why donate to breast cancer research instead of general cancer research?”
Also, hate crime charges exist because the driving force behind them is ideologically based. They exist to try to combat that ideology.
And motive is absolutely a factor in what charges get brought.
You wouldn’t charge someone who lost control of a car and killed someone the same as you would someone who planned and murdered their spouse, even though the end result is someone died. Motivation is a key factor.
No, it literally is not.
Explain how this supposed efficiency manifests, since you disagree. How does focusing on one race of victim reduce police brutality more than focusing on police brutality itself, which takes the exact same amount of effort?
This is a false analogy, because cancers are too different to be accurately described as having a single shared fundamental cause to ‘attack’ with research.
A better analogy would be if someone was arguing for gun control by focusing on only cases where the bullet hits a certain body part. In this analogy, I am the one saying “why aren’t we just focusing on the guns themselves, who cares where people are getting shot, the important thing is that they’re getting shot!”
But there is no conclusive evidence that a criminal charge being ‘enhanced’ as being a hate crime, versus a non hate crime, has had any measurable impact at all on the incidence of said crimes, it’s basically just an ego stroke that doesn’t actually accomplish anything.[1]
What’s the difference between a murder that’s a ‘hate crime’ versus one that isn’t, really? Is the latter victim any less deceased? Is the latter perpetrator any less deserving of punishment?
It should be a factor insofar as whether the crime is deliberate or happenstance, but not beyond that (i.e. whether there IS motivation, but when there is, not WHAT the motivation is). Hot Fuzz satirizes (maybe not deliberately, but coincidentally at least) this well, I think—the townspeople are murdered by the cult for absurdly trivial reasons, like having an annoying laugh. Should that triviality lessen the severity of the crimes?
Right, hence my clarification that the existence of motive makes a difference, but within the umbrella of ‘motivated crimes’, what the motive is should make no difference. I say all ‘motivated’ murders are equally heinous, whether the victim was killed because the murderer is bigoted against their race, or because they hate how the victim laughs.
In fact, it arguably makes things worse, as it gives bigotry within the justice system a stealthy tool of discrimination. I did some cursory poking around that seems to show that black people charged with violent crimes are more likely to have ‘hate crime enhancements’ attached to their charges than white people are. All other factors being equal for the sake of argument, this leads to longer average sentences for black convicts than white, for the same crime. ↩︎
Deliberately out of context, not to misquote you but to say that but this part of the sentence rings true for me, lol. I have never seen “white lives matter” expressed in any significant capacity. Probably saw it written or heard it said less than 10 times since BLM started as a named thing.