Holocaust denial

[civver_764]

Black Lives Matter is a slogan that is short for "Black lives matter, too". That itself is a response to, as you put it, Jim Crow (black lives don't matter) and the drug war where black communities and people are ground zero (black lives don't matter). Seems pretty easy to get on board with the idea that the two sides are "black lives matter, too" vs "black lives don't matter".

"Black lives matter, too" in fact starts with the implicit premise that "all lives matter."

Yeah, saying "all lives matter" is kind of a dick move. BUT, I think a lot of people don't buy into what BLM says it's about, and they see it as merely stirring up racial tensions. I don't know enough about the movement to comment on that, but I think the whole discussion could be helped if we dropped the accusations of racism. Most people saying "All Lives Matter" aren't racist, they just don't agree with the Black Lives Matter movement. It's important to give people the benefit of the doubt and have an honest discussion with them. I get the impression that a lot of liberals think BLM should be immune from criticism, and that's very problematic.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yeah, saying "all lives matter" is kind of a dick move. BUT, I think a lot of people don't buy into what BLM says it's about, and they see it as merely stirring up racial tensions. I don't know enough about the movement to comment on that, but I think the whole discussion could be helped if we dropped the accusations of racism. Most people saying "All Lives Matter" aren't racist, they just don't agree with the Black Lives Matter movement. It's important to give people the benefit of the doubt and have an honest discussion with them. I get the impression that a lot of liberals think BLM should be immune from criticism, and that's very problematic.

I don't generally see any reason to give people the benefit of the doubt when they open with "a dick move." Their interest in having an honest discussion is obviously minimal, so I consider them to be self proclaimed punching bags rather than opportunities for conversation. If they subsequently decide that they wish they hadn't opened with a "dick move" and want a fresh start I'm always willing.

 

[civver_764]

I don't generally see any reason to give people the benefit of the doubt when they open with "a dick move." Their interest in having an honest discussion is obviously minimal, so I consider them to be self proclaimed punching bags rather than opportunities for conversation. If they subsequently decide that they wish they hadn't opened with a "dick move" and want a fresh start I'm always willing.

They'd probably say that "Black Lives Matter" is a dick move to begin with. Nobody really disputes that black lives matter(well I'm sure there's some fringe people that do), they dispute the movement behind the name.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

They'd probably say that "Black Lives Matter" is a dick move to begin with. Nobody really disputes that black lives matter(well I'm sure there's some fringe people that do), they dispute the movement behind the name.

Fine. Once again, their response is all I hold them responsible for. If they want to make a claim about BLM and use it as justification for a "dick move" then they still fit the exact same bill. Their interest in having an honest discussion is obviously minimal, so I consider them to be self proclaimed punching bags rather than opportunities for conversation. If they subsequently decide that they wish they hadn't opened with a "dick move" and want a fresh start I'm always willing.

 

[civver_764]

Ok, fair enough. I agree that both slogans are unhelpful and ultimately antagonizing.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Ok, fair enough. I agree that both slogans are unhelpful and ultimately antagonizing.

One, however, has the qualifier of being an effort to call attention to a genuine problem. Criminal justice in America is significantly biased in application, along racial lines. Saying "black lives matter" to call attention to the reality that our criminal justice system operates on "no, they really don't" may be 'antagonizing,' but it has valid purpose, so I give those who say it a pass.

"All lives matter" is the response of choice for people who really want to respond with "no black lives don't" but feel the need to hide behind something cutesy.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Yeah, i guess they wouldn't get a very good reaction if they called themselves "Only White Lives Matter"

 

[civver_764]

One, however, has the qualifier of being an effort to call attention to a genuine problem. Criminal justice in America is significantly biased in application, along racial lines. Saying "black lives matter" to call attention to the reality that our criminal justice system operates on "no, they really don't" may be 'antagonizing,' but it has valid purpose, so I give those who say it a pass.

I understand the purpose, but pretend you are a person who disagrees with the premise. You don't hate black people, but you also don't think the criminal justice system is biased against them. The fact that your opponents are making these points under the banner of "black lives matter" makes it awkward for you to express your disagreement. You can see how that would kind of peeve the opposition.

"All lives matter" is the response of choice for people who really want to respond with "no black lives don't" but feel the need to hide behind something cutesy.

It's one thing to call them out for being a dick, but it's another to make these baseless accusations of racism. While I'm sure this narrative makes your argument easier, it's not very conducive to discussion and the exchange of ideas. I know you don't care about that, but you come off as unreasonable to anybody that doesn't already agree with you.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I understand the purpose, but pretend you are a person who disagrees with the premise. You don't hate black people, but you also don't think the criminal justice system is biased against them.

Okay, I'm pretending that I am either a complete idiot or I have blatantly refused to acknowledge plain reality despite all efforts to make me face it.

What was the next step in your plan here again?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Can you explain why he liked the following comment? He didn't call that a flagrant lie, he agreed with it... He only called it a flagrant lie when I said he agreed with your comment. What did his post mean? His post speaks for itself... No, he's claiming you believe the opposite of what he posted. So why do you keep giving him credit for understanding what you meant? Why did you like his post if you believe the opposite?

OK... I feel like this is pointless before I even try... but in the interest of making a good faith effort to move beyond this feedback loop I will make one and only one attempt to explain this/answer your repeated questions... This is going to sound condescending, but you seem so confused about something that seems so obvious to me that I can't really think of any other way to explain this... Again, here is FP's comment:

I think he was talking about the broader issue of people thinking that 'black lives matter' excludes people, and that 'all lives matter' should be used instead.

So here goes...

1.What he is saying is that there are people, lets say Republicans for example. Republicans are one of the groups of people we are talking about.

2. OK so these Republicans hear the slogan "Black Lives Matter" and they are offended, they do not like that slogan. Republicans don't like the "Black Lives Matter" slogan.

3. So then these Republicans who don't like the slogan will give explanations for why they don't like the slogan. Republicans offer explanations for disliking the "Black Lives Matter" slogan.

4. Now one of the explanations Republicans give for not liking the "Black Lives Matter" slogan is that through the word "black" they feel it excludes white people and everyone else who is not black. Republicans explain that they don't like the "Black Lives Matter" slogan by saying that they feel it excludes white people and other non-black people. We still on the same page?

5. Then Republicans add to this by saying that for people to say "Black Lives Matter", which they feel excludes whites, police officers and everyone who is not black, the people who are saying "Black Lives Matter" are implying that only black lives matter, and no one who is not black matters. Republicans feel that it is wrong to say that only the lives of black people matter and no one else's lives matter.

6. So because they want to make the point that it is wrong to say that only black people's lives matter and no one else, Republicans say that all the lives of everyone matter, not just black people. Republicans want to respond to the wrong being done in saying only black people matter by insisting that all people matter.

7. And to turn their sentiment into slogan form, these Republicans began saying the slogan "All Lives Matter"

8. Some Republicans are very pleased with this new slogan "All Lives Matter" as a response to "Black Lives Matter" slogan and think that "All Lives matter should be used instead

9. So in summation, Republicans don't like the "Black Lives Matter" slogan, as they think that 'black lives matter' excludes people, and they think that 'all lives matter' should be used instead.

10. However, some people, do not agree with with this for numerous reasons, one for example, is that they think #4 is not the genuine reason Republicans dislike the slogan. I won't get into all the reasons. Suffice it to say the reasons are numerous.

Now... items 1 through 10 are an issue, a controversy, a topic of discussion, that we have all been talking about. The issue again is that Republicans don't like the "Black Lives Matter" slogan, and they claim that 'black lives matter' excludes people, and they think that 'all lives matter' should be used instead, however, some people (like me), do not agree with this for numerous reasons.

So when FP said that I was "talking about the broader issue" he recognized that I was doing just that, talking about the broader issue... that Republicans want to tell folks saying "Black Lives Matter" to say "All Lives Matter" instead, but the people saying "Black Lives Matter" (like me) don't agree with that. What you did was take FP's post and do this with it in your mind: "I think he was saying talking about the broader issue of people thinking that 'black lives matter' excludes people, and that 'all lives matter' should be used instead"... the other thing you did is you confused me referencing the slogan "All lives Matter" and wrongly interpreted it as me citing the "Why All Lives Matter is wrong" thread... why you did this... well I've already said, so I wont repeat... but hopefully now you can see that you were wrong and why you were wrong, without any further explanation.

 

[Hygro]

If that was implicit, BLM would embrace all lives matter

No because there's no impact to that. There's no wakeup alarm to people unaware that specifically black folks were more often treated like their lives didn't matter.

 

[Hygro]

Yeah, saying "all lives matter" is kind of a dick move. BUT, I think a lot of people don't buy into what BLM says it's about, and they see it as merely stirring up racial tensions. I don't know enough about the movement to comment on that, but I think the whole discussion could be helped if we dropped the accusations of racism. Most people saying "All Lives Matter" aren't racist, they just don't agree with the Black Lives Matter movement. It's important to give people the benefit of the doubt and have an honest discussion with them. I get the impression that a lot of liberals think BLM should be immune from criticism, and that's very problematic.

I think this has some important truth to it but there's so much to unpack and a lot of the routes lead to "jk we're actually 'colorblind' pro-status quo therefore pro-structural racism' racists even if we love and respect black individuals in a non society context" dead ends.

 

[Hygro]

I understand the purpose, but pretend you are a person who disagrees with the premise. You don't hate black people, but you also don't think the criminal justice system is biased against them.

This is an example of where the non-snarky, non-lame version of "check your privilege" statement comes into play.

If you have that viewpoint, and think there's no bias there, you either have studied the issue and come to a very unusual position that you can articulate or you have this gut feeling overall observation that comes from the racist super structure of our society that's misleading you into ignorance. (Such a person has not checked their privilege.) The reason I keep it limited to these options is pretty simple: the issue has been formally studied, with numbers and controls and that jury is in, and in, and in.

Do you see other ways it could be?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This is an example of where the non-snarky, non-lame version of "check your privilege" statement comes into play.

If you have that viewpoint, and think there's no bias there, you either have studied the issue and come to a very unusual position that you can articulate or you have this gut feeling overall observation that comes from the racist super structure of our society that's misleading you into ignorance. (Such a person has not checked their privilege.) The reason I keep it limited to these options is pretty simple: the issue has been formally studied, with numbers and controls and that jury is in, and in, and in.

Do you see other ways it could be?

While my answer was undoubtedly snarky, it may have been clearer.

 

[civver_764]

This is an example of where the non-snarky, non-lame version of "check your privilege" statement comes into play.

If you have that viewpoint, and think there's no bias there, you either have studied the issue and come to a very unusual position that you can articulate or you have this gut feeling overall observation that comes from the racist super structure of our society that's misleading you into ignorance. (Such a person has not checked their privilege.) The reason I keep it limited to these options is pretty simple: the issue has been formally studied, with numbers and controls and that jury is in, and in, and in.

Do you see other ways it could be?

Any other ways what could be? Sorry, your post is worded kind of confusingly. It seems like you're saying that the person is either racist or not racist..?

Anyways, I don't have any opinion one way or another on this issue, and I haven't really studied it at all. However, I find the tone of your post much more conducive to honest discussion, compared to tim's accusations of racism. So that's kind of my point, it's better for all parties to bring up studies and numbers like you're doing.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Anyways, I don't have any opinion one way or another on this issue, and I haven't really studied it at all. However, I find the tone of your post much more conducive to honest discussion, compared to tim's accusations of racism. So that's kind of my point, it's better for all parties to bring up studies and numbers like you're doing.

Why? If you are claiming that you "don't have an opinion and really haven't studied it at all" while simultaneously requesting that people "take this on from a point of view" that only someone who has studiously avoided exposure to any facts in the matter could possibly hold, what is the point of trying to push studies and numbers your direction? Are you trying to pretend that you might develop a sudden interest?

You haven't developed an interest during years of peaceful protesting about conditions.

You haven't developed an interest during two years marked by a fairly significant number of outright riots over the issue.

You didn't develop any interest before you started throwing out opinions on the subject.

And now you want to pretend that Hygro has prompted you to take up the subject maybe, but of course Tim calling you a racist (which I didn't) will be your excuse not to.

Get over it.

 

[civver_764]

I'm saying people are more likely to be converted to your side if you go about this discussion like Hygro, rather than calling people racist idiots like you're doing.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm saying people are more likely to be converted to your side if you go about this discussion like Hygro, rather than calling people racist idiots like you're doing.

You assume I care about "converting people to my side" through some process of discussion. If I actually did I would be totally frustrated, because the people who are refusing to be so 'converted' are so obviously capable of ignoring discussion as to make it pointless. So I don't really try. I just poke fun at them and wait for the inevitable.

 

[Berzerker]

OK... I feel like this is pointless before I even try... but in the interest of making a good faith effort to move beyond this feedback loop I will make one and only one attempt to explain this/answer your repeated questions... This is going to sound condescending, but you seem so confused about something that seems so obvious to me that I can't really think of any other way to explain this... Again, here is FP's comment: So here goes...

1.What he is saying is that there are people, lets say Republicans for example. Republicans are one of the groups of people we are talking about.

2. OK so these Republicans hear the slogan "Black Lives Matter" and they are offended, they do not like that slogan. Republicans don't like the "Black Lives Matter" slogan.

3. So then these Republicans who don't like the slogan will give explanations for why they don't like the slogan. Republicans offer explanations for disliking the "Black Lives Matter" slogan.

4. Now one of the explanations Republicans give for not liking the "Black Lives Matter" slogan is that through the word "black" they feel it excludes white people and everyone else who is not black. Republicans explain that they don't like the "Black Lives Matter" slogan by saying that they feel it excludes white people and other non-black people. We still on the same page?

5. Then Republicans add to this by saying that for people to say "Black Lives Matter", which they feel excludes whites, police officers and everyone who is not black, the people who are saying "Black Lives Matter" are implying that only black lives matter, and no one who is not black matters. Republicans feel that it is wrong to say that only the lives of black people matter and no one else's lives matter.

6. So because they want to make the point that it is wrong to say that only black people's lives matter and no one else, Republicans say that all the lives of everyone matter, not just black people. Republicans want to respond to the wrong being done in saying only black people matter by insisting that all people matter.

7. And to turn their sentiment into slogan form, these Republicans began saying the slogan "All Lives Matter"

8. Some Republicans are very pleased with this new slogan "All Lives Matter" as a response to "Black Lives Matter" slogan and think that "All Lives matter should be used instead

9. So in summation, Republicans don't like the "Black Lives Matter" slogan, as they think that 'black lives matter' excludes people, and they think that 'all lives matter' should be used instead.

10. However, some people, do not agree with with this for numerous reasons, one for example, is that they think #4 is not the genuine reason Republicans dislike the slogan. I won't get into all the reasons. Suffice it to say the reasons are numerous.

Now... items 1 through 10 are an issue, a controversy, a topic of discussion, that we have all been talking about. The issue again is that Republicans don't like the "Black Lives Matter" slogan, and they claim that 'black lives matter' excludes people, and they think that 'all lives matter' should be used instead, however, some people (like me), do not agree with this for numerous reasons.

So when FP said that I was "talking about the broader issue" he recognized that I was doing just that, talking about the broader issue... that Republicans want to tell folks saying "Black Lives Matter" to say "All Lives Matter" instead, but the people saying "Black Lives Matter" (like me) don't agree with that. What you did was take FP's post and do this with it in your mind: "I think he was saying talking about the broader issue of people thinking that 'black lives matter' excludes people, and that 'all lives matter' should be used instead"... the other thing you did is you confused me referencing the slogan "All lives Matter" and wrongly interpreted it as me citing the "Why All Lives Matter is wrong" thread... why you did this... well I've already said, so I wont repeat... but hopefully now you can see that you were wrong and why you were wrong, without any further explanation.

I understand now, thanks for explaining. I apologize for misreading FP's post and why you liked it (doh), he wasn't saying you wanted to replace blm with alm because it excludes people, he was saying the people he referenced want to replace the terms. Sometimes the obvious aint too clear to me. And I'm guilty of the 2nd part too, but I wasn't trying to import that debate here. The reference to 'all lives matter' made me think of the Zimmerman debate so I was asking Lex if he would cite it as evidence for his slimy accusation.

The analogy was valid though... BLM and the holocaust are similar in that respect. Focusing on one group of victims basically tells everyone else they dont matter as much (or at all). Its human nature to be more sympathetic to one's own group whatever that may be, and its human nature to say "what about the rest of us?".

Its kinda like being an Indian as the Europeans seized the continent and having a special mourning for the tribe that got it worst. After a while the other tribes are gonna resent being left out. Are they racists? Anti-semites? How many semites were murdered by the Axis powers? More than the number of Jews? Are they part of the 6 million for which we remember the holocaust or did they get excluded too?

Then, on Saturday, the White House said that Jews had been omitted from the statement on purpose because other victims also suffered and died in the Holocaust, an explanation that seemed to minimize the effects of a genocide that killed two-thirds of the Jewish population of Europe. Sen. Tim Kaine called it “Holocaust denial.”

http://www.vox.com/2017/1/30/14431216/trump-holocaust-statement-6-million-jews

Trump didn't mention the Jews and thats holocaust denial. Did he mention the Gypsies? The Slavs? The disabled? How about all the other undesirables? Is that holocaust denial too?

 

[Hygro]

Any other ways what could be? Sorry, your post is worded kind of confusingly. It seems like you're saying that the person is either racist or not racist..?

Anyways, I don't have any opinion one way or another on this issue, and I haven't really studied it at all. However, I find the tone of your post much more conducive to honest discussion, compared to tim's accusations of racism. So that's kind of my point, it's better for all parties to bring up studies and numbers like you're doing.

Yeah man, I trust your open mindedness so I might try to explain the mechanisms as I see em and if they don't translate, no rush. This issue ain't going anywhere.