Randomness thread, part two.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Vaccines. You're welcome.

Are you saying that people aren't happy today because cancer and AIDS?

Sure, people with cancer and AIDS could be happier if they didn't have scary diseases, but are they raging against the non-existent intellectual elite who may one day cure their disease who would have already cured these diseases if it weren't for the system stifling their genius?

It reminds me of the statement about relative wealth being more important to people than absolute wealth, but just replace wealth with health.

***
What do you mean by "happy"? Is it a short-term thing that can happen many times a day or a long-term thing that you either have or do not have on any given day/week?


EDIT: strikethrough and replace

[rong]

I was somewhat joking but I don't buy into (pun?) all these material goods and advancements making people happier as a whole.

I completely agree with this. Most of our resources are completely wasted on satisfying artificial wants and needs created by marketing.

[OngBonga]

I dunno why you're all trying to get Ong to do something he doesn't want to do. If he's happy with what he's doing then fair play to the lad. If it fucks you off that he lives the way he does vote for people who would stop him doing that.

I think it's one of two things... I suspect some people (dan for example) are frustrated with me because they know I can do more for myself, and feel that I should do. While others (spoon) probably don't believe me when I say I'm happy with my circumstances, that I aspire for more but lack the motivation and/or confidence to push myself further.

I understand where both come from. If I had kids, then I'd feel obliged to set an example for them. If I was happy at work, I probably wouldn't believe that someone could be happy to do nothing and live on next to fuck all, especially someone who isn't stupid. We're all brought up to believe that money equals success. It isn't, not to me anyway. Happiness is success.

[spoonitnow]

the non-existent intellectual elite

This is the type of thing that makes me wish there was an ignore feature on FTR. You're saying that an intellectual elite does not exist, and I'm supposed to care about anything else you say after that.

[spoonitnow]

I think it's one of two things... I suspect some people (dan for example) are frustrated with me because they know I can do more for myself, and feel that I should do. While others (spoon) probably don't believe me when I say I'm happy with my circumstances, that I aspire for more but lack the motivation and/or confidence to push myself further.

I understand where both come from. If I had kids, then I'd feel obliged to set an example for them. If I was happy at work, I probably wouldn't believe that someone could be happy to do nothing and live on next to fuck all, especially someone who isn't stupid. We're all brought up to believe that money equals success. It isn't, not to me anyway. Happiness is success.

It's more along the line of trying to get you to do something that you do want to do when you don't know if you can do it, which would increase your happiness and success.

[OngBonga]

Wealth inequality is so hilarious to me anyway. What if we just took away everyone who was wealthy? Equal as fuck, but all equally shitty.

Wealth inequality is fine when it's not massive.

I don't think doctors should earn the same amount as fast food drones. I think it's perfectly reasonable that the skilled and brainy are rewarded better than those who serve burgers or stack shelves. I don't think it's reasonable that a single person who understands how to play the system can stockpile billions at the expense of those who have no idea how the system works, which is nearly everyone.

Equality is nonsense. We're not all equal. We're certainly not as inequal as the status quo implies.

[OngBonga]

It's more along the line of trying to get you to do something that you do want to do when you don't know if you can do it, which would increase your happiness and success.

You're right in that I would be happier if I was supporting myself in this way.

[rong]

Dude, you need to get a job and save every penny you can.

Go on a sub reddit for living on 10 quid a month or something and start doing it.

Just suck it up and be miserable for a couple of years and the long term would have potential. You may even get laid, I mean apparently something like 70% of people find a fuck in the workplace.

[MadMojoMonkey]

This is the type of thing that makes me wish there was an ignore feature on FTR.

It's like mis-reading me is your favorite go-to, fun-time hobby on FTR.
Why would you take that away from yourself?

You're saying that an intellectual elite does not exist, and I'm supposed to care about anything else you say after that.

I'm saying some hypothetical uber-hyper-mega elite that is above and beyond what we have as intellectual elite today.
Look how dumb you are.

I don't think anyone is "supposed" to do anything or that this can even be argued outside of a moral context (which I have pointed out to you before). Stop your trolling and put on your big kid pants and try to hear what people are actually saying rather than just griping about your pre-conceived notions of the un-nuanced arguments made by shallow thinkers.

***
I could just take your approach:

You're saying [...]

No, I'm not.

and I'm supposed to care about anything else you say after that.

Quit your feminine misdirection of logic to inconsequential emotional responses.
IDGAF who/what you care about.

[rong]

I mean Jesus fuck, doesn't your lack of appeal to girls motivate you? Surely you want to get laid?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Isn't wuf's and spoon's line here that taxes and welfare stifle the intellectual progress of a society?

Is this somehow not implying that the current intellectual elite would be more intellectual and more elite if not for the stifling policies?

I mean... maybe I'm really the dumb one, here, because that seems implicit.

[OngBonga]

I mean Jesus fuck, doesn't your lack of appeal to girls motivate you? Surely you want to get laid?

I'm not lonely. Would it be nice to get laid? Of course, but it no longer motivates me in the least. Ten years ago was different.

[spoonitnow]

the non-existent intellectual elite

You're saying that an intellectual elite does not exist

No, I'm not.

Alright then.

[a500lbgorilla]

Suuuper interesting take on the philosophy of the most recent Southpark season.

[MadMojoMonkey]

@spoon: Sheez, this is what I said in the first place. Underline added for emphasis.

Are you saying that people aren't happy today because cancer and AIDS?

Sure, people with cancer and AIDS could be happier if they didn't have scary diseases, but are they raging against the non-existent intellectual elite who would have already cured these diseases if it weren't for the system stifling their genius?

It reminds me of the statement about relative wealth being more important to people than absolute wealth, but just replace wealth with health.

***
What do you mean by "happy"? Is it a short-term thing that can happen many times a day or a long-term thing that you either have or do not have on any given day/week?

I think you're saying the system stifles the growth of the intellectual elite and therefore the current intellectual elite is not as capable as it would be if the system were different. Ergo I'm addressing that gap at the top, which is non-existent in the current system.

So can you answer these questions? Or is it too much to ask of you to read the whole sentence before you respond?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Suuuper interesting take on the philosophy of the most recent Southpark season.

Wow. Refreshing. Great analysis, and I stopped watching South Park years ago.

I lacked the full context going in, but it was still an impressively constructed point.

I don't know what counter-arguments could be made, though, since I haven't seen the show.

[wufwugy]

It was very good. I started putting up a rebuttal to the neoliberalism part, but it wasn't clear so I jumped ship.

The jist of it is that I don't think it's accurate to blame neoliberalism for consumerism. Consumerism is inherent to human life. Things look exceptionally consumerist today for what I see as mostly two reasons: (1) people are wealthier and thus can consume greater quantities and varieties than when people were, well, less wealthy, and (2) government policies and cultural ideals arguably increase proportions of profligacy (think: when you expect Social Security in your old age, you don't have to be thrifty and disciplined in preparation for old age).

The critiques in the video are pretty thoughtful, but I think it's wrong to blame neoliberalism. The consumerist tendencies are there even without neoliberalism, and the SJW derivations mentioned in the video are found in cultures without neoliberalism (think: communism and its focus on victims and oppressors). The video tries to make a contrast in enemies being unclear when market forces are at play yet enemies being clear in cases of despotism. I don't think this accurately portrays history. People worship despots pretty religiously, and no less than they worship consumption of market goods.

[JKDS]

The season being all linked together is pretty good evidence that there is a larger season-wide message going on. I think the theory presented is likely what they were going for.

[a500lbgorilla]

I really have nothing to add on top of that video, so I'll just post this other one that's also really good.

[OngBonga]

I really have nothing to add except to say that I have nothing to add.

[a500lbgorilla]

I'm glad you're OngBonga, OngBonga.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Addition is one of my favorite things.

[wufwugy]

Quoting Ben Shapiro in AMA on how to combat democratic socialism:

You have to rip away their unearned sense of moral superiority for wanting to steal the money of others. It's not just that Sanders is wrong. It's that his philosophy is evil. You don't get to take other people's money -- their labor -- just because you think life is unfair. That is the belief system of a two-year-old.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservativ...n_shapiro_ama/

[spoonitnow]

Quoting Ben Shapiro in AMA on how to combat democratic socialism:



https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservativ...n_shapiro_ama/

Aka the basis of the slave morality.

[spoonitnow]

Thoughts on Black Lives Matter?

[wufwugy]

When it's wrong to say that all lives matter, you know you've jumped the shark.

[spoonitnow]

When it's wrong to say that all lives matter, you know you've jumped the shark.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Criminal lives matter, too.

[boost]

When you need to assert that the lives of a minority group matter, you shouldn't be surprised that a common response is "all lives matter!"

I think there are a lot of issues with the BLM movement, but the critique of "All lives matter" is an obvious non sequitur.

[wufwugy]

I think there are a lot of issues with the BLM movement, but the critique of "All lives matter" is an obvious non sequitur.

What do you mean?

[boost]

What do you mean?

I thought my egregious misquote of you made it all the more obvious..

The phrase "Black Lives Matter" is in response to a message from society that black lives don't matter. You can debate whether or not the message received is real or imagined, but the context of the phrase is "... too." not "Only...", making "all lives matter!" a non sequitur and an obvious source of frustration for those saying "Black Lives Matter."

[wufwugy]

I thought my egregious misquote of you made it all the more obvious..

The phrase "Black Lives Matter" is in response to a message from society that black lives don't matter. You can debate whether or not the message received is real or imagined, but the context of the phrase is "... too." not "Only...", making "all lives matter!" a non sequitur and an obvious source of frustration for those saying "Black Lives Matter."

I don't disagree with this except that the response of BLM advocates to the statement "all lives matter" does not appear to me to be the kind that's consistent with the "too" qualifier you mentioned. If it was, people wouldn't be getting in trouble with BLM advocates for saying "all lives matter" because BLM advocates would agree with them. In that case, it would still make sense for BLM advocates to continue to advocate for their belief that there is unique mistreatment of black lives, but that doesn't necessitate it being wrong to advocate that all lives matter.

Instead of this, the typical BLM advocate that makes the news behaves in such a way that it's sensible to say they have internalized (perhaps inadvertently) the idea that black lives matter "only." I don't think that many of them hold that belief, but my point is that when they say it's wrong to say all lives matter, they neglect that which is consistent with the idea that black lives matter "too."

It's like if I say "Saving Private Ryan is a good movie" and you say "all Spielberg movies are good movies." If I were to agree with you yet still think that SPR is uniquely good, I would respond with something like "I agree, but let me illustrate why I'm making this point about SPR." However, if I was a BLM protester, I would instead chastise you for thinking that all Spielberg movies are good because I want you to focus only on SPR.

[JKDS]

Its ok to say "all lives matter" because some black people disagree.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Instead of this, the typical BLM advocate that makes the news behaves in such a way that it's sensible to say they have internalized (perhaps inadvertently) the idea that black lives matter "only."

The news is not incentivized to portray truth or to seek resolution.

The news is incentivized to portray conflict and to seek ratings.

[OngBonga]

Hey I'm black and I matter.

Hi I'm white and I matter.

Sup, I'm yellow and I matter.

Hi I'm wufwugy and I don't matter.

[spoonitnow]

I'd like to see them do something like push for education reform instead of just screaming that everything is racist on Twitter.

[OngBonga]

I think accusing someone of being racist should be considered racist in its own right.

If I call a nigger my nigger, he'll only call me racist if I'm not a nigger like him.

Therefore, he's being racist, while I'm not, because I only said a word, he's actually discriminating against me.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I think accusing someone of being racist should be considered racist in its own right.

If I call a nigger my nigger, he'll only call me racist if I'm not a nigger like him.

Therefore, he's being racist, while I'm not, because I only said a word, he's actually discriminating against me.

You did claim him as property.
He's not just yours, man.

He's here for all of us to share.

That's what equality means.

EDIT: You called him that word because of his race, whereas he's calling you a racist based on your actions.
Pretty sure you're still the racist in that scenario.

[OngBonga]

But what if I call my white mates nigger too?

I'm all for equality, we're all niggers.

[OngBonga]

Just to be clear, I don't really call black people "my nigger", assuming it to be acceptable based on equality.

I'm just being crass.

Also, I don't think everyone is a nigger. I might be, but baudib isn't.

[wufwugy]

The news is not incentivized to portray truth or to seek resolution.

The news is incentivized to portray conflict and to seek ratings.

Agreed. Just to be clear about my intention, it was to not lump everybody in the same bucket. A lot of people hold solidarity with BLM and I don't want to vilify them, yet when people discuss BLM on forums like this, it's typically about what is seen in the media. My "all lives matter" point was about something that the media covered.

[wufwugy]

I think accusing someone of being racist should be considered racist in its own right.

If I call a nigger my nigger, he'll only call me racist if I'm not a nigger like him.

Therefore, he's being racist, while I'm not, because I only said a word, he's actually discriminating against me.

Strong reasoning.

[OngBonga]

I agree with everything ong said

I like taking comments out of context, so here's drew agreeing with me.

[wufwugy]

I'd like to see them do something like push for education reform instead of just screaming that everything is racist on Twitter.

How dare you ask them to burn their sacred cow. Social and economic justice are authority; they must be dispensed with an iron fist by philosopher kings. Education reform has too much of that nasty self-reliance and freedom of choice bullshit.

I think they don't talk about education reform because they know they would lose that fight. Even though they want society to conform to their image, they don't want to be thought of that way since most people tend to think that's a problematic ideal to hold. It appears that they have convinced themselves and many others that their championing of uniformity is actually championing of diversity. Those that want education reform are typically viewed as uniform and monolithic, which is ironic since the education reform they propose is in actuality a great distributor of diversity.

[boost]

I don't disagree with this except that the response of BLM advocates to the statement "all lives matter" does not appear to me to be the kind that's consistent with the "too" qualifier you mentioned. If it was, people wouldn't be getting in trouble with BLM advocates for saying "all lives matter" because BLM advocates would agree with them. In that case, it would still make sense for BLM advocates to continue to advocate for their belief that there is unique mistreatment of black lives, but that doesn't necessitate it being wrong to advocate that all lives matter.

Instead of this, the typical BLM advocate that makes the news behaves in such a way that it's sensible to say they have internalized (perhaps inadvertently) the idea that black lives matter "only." I don't think that many of them hold that belief, but my point is that when they say it's wrong to say all lives matter, they neglect that which is consistent with the idea that black lives matter "too."

It's like if I say "Saving Private Ryan is a good movie" and you say "all Spielberg movies are good movies." If I were to agree with you yet still think that SPR is uniquely good, I would respond with something like "I agree, but let me illustrate why I'm making this point about SPR." However, if I was a BLM protester, I would instead chastise you for thinking that all Spielberg movies are good because I want you to focus only on SPR.

I think the poor response is rooted, mainly, in three things:

1: Most people are inarticulate and lack critical thinking skills, especially in the heat of the moment-- any movement, but especially a decentralized one without a strong unifying voice is going to suffer from an inability to stay on message. That is, if they even have a coherent message to begin with.

2: Echo chambers form in all sorts of groups. The echo chamber housing the SJW movement is uncanny. So responses to attacks and even cordial challenges are often over the top because the axiom being challenged is held to be a self evident truth.

3: The retort "all lives matter" is sometimes innocent, but not always. As I said initially, when intentional, it's a rhetorical trick in that it's a response to a statement no one has made. This can be infuriating, and, well, see #1.


In direct response to your movie analogy-- if the premise of the conversation is "Saving Private Ryan is totally overrated, it's actually mediocre at best", then it may not be the best, most productive response, but it's certainly understandable to treat you like so:

[spoonitnow]

Speaking of black lives matter, George Zimmerman is auctioning off the gun used to kill Trayvon Martin. He's starting the bidding at $5,000.

[chardrian]

1) When your retort to "black lives matter" is "all lives matter" then I think it is wrong to say "all lives matter." Why should a "black lives matter" proponent have to agree that "all lives matter" when an "all lives matter" proponent refuses to agree that "black lives matter?"

People get in trouble with BLM advocates for saying "all lives matter" because, in general, those people are being combative and telling the BLM advocate that his stance is wrong. So of course the first, and appropriate, response is to say - "no - you're wrong." Which then comes off as a BLM proponent saying not all lives matter, which again, in general, is not the case at all.

2) The BLM movement isn't a kumbaya let's all intertwine arms and skip down the street together movement. It's a movement that in essence is saying we are sick and tired of being mistreated. So the retort "all lives matter" is also hurtful because it refuses to acknowledge that mistreatment. The BLM advocate is saying that the "all lives matter" advocate already has a life that matters so please recognize this and bring our lives on par with yours.

[Savy]

1) When your retort to "black lives matter" is "all lives matter" then I think it is wrong to say "all lives matter." Why should a "black lives matter" proponent have to agree that "all lives matter" when an "all lives matter" proponent refuses to agree that "black lives matter?"

People get in trouble with BLM advocates for saying "all lives matter" because, in general, those people are being combative and telling the BLM advocate that his stance is wrong. So of course the first, and appropriate, response is to say - "no - you're wrong." Which then comes off as a BLM proponent saying not all lives matter, which again, in general, is not the case at all.

2) The BLM movement isn't a kumbaya let's all intertwine arms and skip down the street together movement. It's a movement that in essence is saying we are sick and tired of being mistreated. So the retort "all lives matter" is also hurtful because it refuses to acknowledge that mistreatment. The BLM advocate is saying that the "all lives matter" advocate already has a life that matters so please recognize this and bring our lives on par with yours.

It is funny though that if the movement had actually started as "all lives matter" tonnes of resistance against the movement wouldn't be there in the first place whilst addressing all the same points & causing a sense of togetherness rather than exclusion. It's almost as if segregating people into generalised groups does more harm than good.

I find that that argument about all lives matter actually mostly gets said by people who don't necessarily understand the finer points behind what's being pushed by BLM and instead of explaining it, which is clearly possible to do and most people would agree with the point (which is all lives matter), people get ostracised.

@ the bold - all lives matter is inclusive and implies that black lives matter as black lives are a smaller subset of all lives. Whilst saying black lives matter isn't inclusive nor does it imply all lives matter. So the bold is a bit silly really.

[wufwugy]

1) When your retort to "black lives matter" is "all lives matter" then I think it is wrong to say "all lives matter." Why should a "black lives matter" proponent have to agree that "all lives matter" when an "all lives matter" proponent refuses to agree that "black lives matter?"

People get in trouble with BLM advocates for saying "all lives matter" because, in general, those people are being combative and telling the BLM advocate that his stance is wrong. So of course the first, and appropriate, response is to say - "no - you're wrong." Which then comes off as a BLM proponent saying not all lives matter, which again, in general, is not the case at all.

2) The BLM movement isn't a kumbaya let's all intertwine arms and skip down the street together movement. It's a movement that in essence is saying we are sick and tired of being mistreated. So the retort "all lives matter" is also hurtful because it refuses to acknowledge that mistreatment. The BLM advocate is saying that the "all lives matter" advocate already has a life that matters so please recognize this and bring our lives on par with yours.

Therein lies the genius of BLM: assuming the premise that blacks are treated differently by the law, making those who argue from a different premise seeming to be changing the subject.

The response of "all lives matter" to the statement "black lives matter" is an important one to make because perceptions of mistreatment of arbitrary groups is unimportant; the law, mainly, the breaking of it, is important. If cops mistreat black people, it is no more important than mistreatment of other groups, and the standards to determine such are no less relevant and a decided on case by case basis. "Black lives matter" is a type of social engineering, not a legal stance. "All lives matter" is at least a reflection of the principle that when something is wrong, it's wrong equally and must be found so on the legal merits. Additionally, it's a pulling back from the divide and conquer tactics too often seen from authoritarian ideologies.

The aspects of civil rights for blacks and women that work are ones that deal with equal treatment under the law. If BLM can't show unequal treatment, they're just rabble-rousing. So far, their cries of mistreatment have flung egg on their faces, since so many of the instances they rabble-rouse over end up being determined lawful treatment, as well as they ignore mistreatment of non-blacks.

The ignoring of mistreatment except in cases of blacks is a major problem. A good social movement this does not make. "All lives matter" brings BLM back to reality. The problem is not mistreatment of blacks; the problem is mistreatment of people regardless of color. If blacks are mistreated more than others, then each case can be constructed on its merits, and either the law will be fair or the law will not. In the latter case, trends could be identified and the law should be changed. But BLM hasn't gotten anywhere close to that stage yet. It's still hand-wavy unidentifiable "institutional" racism and faux martyrs.

[wufwugy]

Maybe the TLDR of that is that mistreatment is determined on a case by case basis (or by showing a problem with the law in the first place). I have yet to see BLM approach the problem this way, and the statement that "all lives matter" is to show how out of bounds the focus on one arbitrary group without identifying grievances is.

[spoonitnow]

If you disagree that all lives matter, then you have no ground to stand on to say that black lives matter.

[chardrian]

If you disagree that all lives matter, then you have no ground to stand on to say that black lives matter.

if you agree that black lives matter than you wouldn't have to say that all lives matter.

[chardrian]

the statement that "all lives matter" is to show how out of bounds the focus on one arbitrary group without identifying grievances is.

I don't agree that blacks are an "arbitrary" group; I don't agree that they have failed to identify grievances (unfairly targeted by police, more likely to be killed by police, unfairly treated by drug laws, are some of the few but obvious identifiable grievances); and therefore I don't agree that their focus is out of bounds at all.

[MadMojoMonkey]

if you agree that black lives matter than you wouldn't have to say that all lives matter.

I don't follow you, here.

If you agree that black lives matter because you stand against racism of all forms, then hearing someone say "black lives matter" sounds like a textbook example of a racist sentiment.

[wufwugy]

I don't agree that blacks are an "arbitrary" group; I don't agree that they have failed to identify grievances (unfairly targeted by police, more likely to be killed by police, unfairly treated by drug laws, are some of the few but obvious identifiable grievances); and therefore I don't agree that their focus is out of bounds at all.

How do we know if somebody is "unfairly targeted by the police?" We do case by case investigative work and prosecutorial work. A statistic that shows blacks have a higher rate of interaction with police than whites does not show legal misconduct or unfair treatment.

I've seen a lot of statistics that claim many contrary positions to the narrative that blacks are unfairly treated by cops, but honestly I don't even know if they're accurate, and, even if they are, they're not worth discussing because statistics are so easy to misuse. They are often molded to fit a narrative and they do not account for details and nuance. How do the quotes go? Something like "lies, damn lies, and statistics" and "torture numbers, and they'll confess to anything."

Are we really saying that black majority communities, with black police chiefs and black majority police officers are acting in racism against blacks?

I can refrain from calling blacks an arbitrary group. I do think it's arbitrary, but that doesn't mean I don't think it's meaningful. There's a great deal of meaning for why we discuss blacks as a group. I'm claiming arbitrariness due to seeing no legitimate grievances as presented by BLM*. If the law isn't finding for mistreatment of blacks, claiming they are being mistreated strikes me as equally arbitrary as if one were to claim mistreatment of people named Jeff when the law isn't finding for mistreatment of Jeffs. Note that I'm not making a legal authority argument here. I think that if the law is wrong and wrongfully not finding mistreatment, that should be addressed. I don't think BLM addresses that, largely because the high profile attempts at doing so are with faux martyrs who were doing the wrong thing and whom the law treated fairly.


*That doesn't mean the grievances don't exist, just that the ones presented at the BLM mass media level do not appear legitimate to me.

[spoonitnow]

if you agree that black lives matter than you wouldn't have to say that all lives matter.

This is completely and totally untrue. Saying that all lives matter includes the fact that black lives matter. I don't understand how you could make such an obvious logical misstep?

[wufwugy]

if you agree that black lives matter than you wouldn't have to say that all lives matter.

In addition to what MMM said, saying "all lives matter" is saying "black lives matter" because black lives are a subset of all lives. I get that the BLM argument is that blacks are mistreated more than non-blacks, but I'm saying that, if that was true, it's irrelevant because mistreatment is dealt with on a case by case basis, and all of it needs to be dealt with. In my mind, the narrative that "black lives matter" just further segments society and it further detaches itself from principles that sustain an equitable society.

[NightGizmo]

How do the quotes go? Something like "lies, damn lies, and statistics" and "torture numbers, and they'll confess to anything."

[chardrian]

I don't follow you, here.

If you agree that black lives matter because you stand against racism of all forms, then hearing someone say "black lives matter" sounds like a textbook example of a racist sentiment.

I understand that a lot of what is said on the internet is just trolling/lolz/whatever. But no, hearing someone say "black lives matter" doesn't sound like a textbook example of a racist sentiment to me. It sounds like a group of people who have been unfairly treated and vicitimized for a long, long time, and who are trying to yell it to anyone that goddam it stop victimizing my group, stop treating me unfairly - because I matter just as much as you do.
I really don't understand how that is so difficult to understand.
I guess the difference is when I hear "black lives matter" I hear "black lives matter too" I don't hear the whole "black lives matter more than your lives" that you seem to be hearing.
/end rant.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Assuming that skin color = race:

Making a blanket statement about a group of people based solely on their race is the definition of racism. Whether that statement is positive or negative, if it distinguishes the group it addresses by race, that statement is a textbook racist statement.

For the record, if the phrase is "black lives matter, too," then this entire conversation never starts.

[JKDS]

It is funny though that if the movement had actually started as "all lives matter" tonnes of resistance against the movement wouldn't be there in the first place...

Do you really think so? When you first heard of the blm movement, we're your thoughts about how they wanted more rights than everyone else? Or where they more about how they wanted equal rights?

Any argument can be cleverly twisted. This one was easier than most, but do you think a counter movement could honestly have been prevented with a different theme?

[JKDS]

People here are coming from the perspective that we need to first prove misconduct, and only then should we act to fix it. That is a perfectly reasonable way to go about it.

African Americans would argue that there is misconduct, and that the misconduct has been blatant up until even the 1970s. They would say it never went away, and is still here in the 2010s. That's also fair, you can't flip a switch and expect racism to go away.

I think our criminal justice system needs heavy reform. I think it does treat minorities (in general) unfairly. The biggest issue with blm though is that the events they rallied behind were, imo, the wrong cases to stand behind. Martin was about self defense laws, and the burden required to overcome it. Ferguson had a criminal go for an officers weapon. The movement's image wasn't helped by looting either. But just because the rallied cases arnt necessarily examples of racism, doesn't mean that minorities are pulled over as often as whites. It doesn't mean there arnt racist laws regarding drugs and voting. It doesn't mean blacks are searched for "dangerous weapons" under the same circumstances as whites.

[OngBonga]

I'll throw my weight into this stupid conversation.

"Black lives matter" is not an exclusive comment.

If someone says "I like coffee", but not "I like coffee too", then do you assume they hate tea?

[OngBonga]

I like chocolate hobnobs.

Get me, being all anti-digestive.

[OngBonga]

My dog matters.

That must therefore means that no other dog matters, because I didn't say "too".

Also, I obviously hate cats, because I excluded them from my comment.

[OngBonga]

It can be argued that the comment "black lives matter" then leaves other aspects open to iterpretation, fair enough. You might then want to ask someone "what about yellow lives", to which they should then say "well yeah yellow lives matter too obviously, but yellows ain't getting shot by cops every day", to which I'd reply "is that the time? I gotta go".

[MadMojoMonkey]

Also, I obviously hate cats[...]

I'm telling bigred about this.

You filthy speciesist.

[Savy]

I'll throw my weight into this stupid conversation.

"Black lives matter" is not an exclusive comment.

If someone says "I like coffee", but not "I like coffee too", then do you assume they hate tea?

Yeah but if someone asked "do you like tea too?" you wouldn't call them a racist.

[OngBonga]

Yeah but if someone asked "do you like tea too?" you wouldn't call them a racist.

I might think they're coffeeist though, especially if there was an aggressive tone to the question.

[OngBonga]

I'm telling bigred about this.

You filthy speciesist.

bigred has disappeared, probably got eaten by a cat.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Last time I saw bigred, he was hanging out with a professional popcorn.

[Savy]

I might think they're coffeeist though, especially if there was an aggressive tone to the question.

But if someone said they like all hot drinks you'd know they were a liar.

wait, what

[OngBonga]

But if someone said they like all hot drinks you'd know they were a liar.

wait, what

Yeah because my steaming piss can be considered a hot drink, if served in a glass.

[OngBonga]

Last time I saw bigred, he was hanging out with a professional popcorn.

I hope he comes back in time for the last game of WW, and does his usual hi then fuck off thing.

[JKDS]

Yeah but if someone asked "do you like tea too?" you wouldn't call them a racist.

Well, that's not a fair comparison. No question was asked by ALM, they asserted a statement.

If you're having a conversation with a bunch of people, try to say something, but everyone keeps talking over you and ignoring you, you might say "hey, my opinion matters". The response wasn't "well, does our opinion matter too?"...the response was "all opinions matter, sweetie".