Why "All Lives Matters" is wrong

[Sommerswerd]

I've heard accounts that many people actually don't feel a gunshot wound, are surprised after the fact to discover that they've suffered one.

US Marine explains what being shot feels like:

It feels like a sledgehammer hitting you in the back, my stomach felt like the worst incontinence imaginable. Then you paradoxically try to resume your task in the fight, until you realize your own bodily dysfunction. I started flailing and screaming as horribly as you could possibly imagine. I could hear people directing fire when someone saw me on the ground and started screaming like a banshee for a Corpsman. I could hear the corpsman call booming through the school house as I laid in the dirt writhing in agony and crazily pulling at the grass surrounding me, feebly attempting to displace the unmitigated sensation surging through me. Then a warm pours over you, seeps through your body armor, pools down at your legs, and you can't even see it, because the one time you attempted to roll and have a gander is the first time you blacked out.

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-marine-afghanistan-shot-2014-10

 

[Farm Boy]

Right, but do you get that better from Hands Up Don't Shoot! Or do you get it better from I CAN'T BREATHE!

It's vexing that I have enough examples I can pick and choose.

 

[Synobun]

Important to note that where a bullet hits and what kind of bullet it is are both important factors to take into consideration when exploring the "adrenaline masks the pain" route. There are places in the body that will stop you whether you feel it or not, and many places that will transcend the adrenal response entirely and put you in a world of hurt.

I think @Farm Boy is onto something with his slogan point. It is an opinion that I mostly share in that movements blunt themselves when they rally behind a slogan we know to be questionable or otherwise false. This does not mean that the scenario being rallied behind is void of blame for the authority figure, but it does mean it's a poor example of what people are angry about. As mentioned, there are many stories of truly horrid acts by an authority figure that can be used for these movements. Their slogans are verified and unquestionably true. Everyone short of those consciously putting their head in the sand understands this and recognizes the wrongness being presented.

This changes with a situation where the facts come out and it ends up being the case that everyone involved was a bit of a git. You have to be selective with your martyrs and your imagery to maximize their impact on those less invested in your cause. "HUDS!" has a lot more room for plausible doubt and finger-pointing than the other slogans (like "ICB!") and is thus damaging to the overarching goal of rallying support from those more complacent or less involved.

As much as I dislike the theory of black and white morality (pardon the phrasing), it's important when you have an outrage-based movement. You need to leave as little room for doubt as possible. People need to look at your example and be forced into a position where their possible denial in the face of facts is a significant admonishment of their own character and morality. Maximizing the number of people who have no choice but to agree with you is key in being taken seriously and to be paid attention to.

 

[Berzerker]

The racist bit is how you judge the death as good after the fact based on who it happened to, and ignore the injustice of the act itself.

This is the part of the post that crosses into race/class hatred.

If Trayvon had instead been 'Buford Jackson', poor white trash with a confederate flag on his belt buckle and Zimmerman was black none of the defenders of Trayvon here on the forums or in the media would have been defending the dead white guy, while I'd still defend the shooter regardless of his race as he was in the right.

Would you be defending Buford Jackson, Senethro?

 

[Farm Boy]

You don't need to make somebody up. You can go find the thread before and after LaVoy was killed. Pace the hostility towards "yokel haram" then realize it takes approximately that level of hate and fear to justify killing Trayvon without losing sleep. More, probably. Given he was a kid, he wasn't armed, and he wasn't even protesting.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Both of them are true. Being policed will cause resentment on its own, even in most clear cases of the police doing a good job. A son is being charged for a crime that they say they didn't commit? Even if there's evidence to show that the son committed the crime, in many cases the family will start resenting the police for that. At the very least subconsciously, but you also end up with enough cases where people simply want to believe that "Our Little Jimmy is not a criminal!" and go into denial, even in the face of clear evidence that he is.

Now, such cases are local, and normally, the overall impact of that would be a positive one. The family may start resenting the police more, but everybody who looks at the case reasonably will think they did a good job. However, add a high crime rate where many people have such cases in their families, where most people hear anecdotes of police arresting people who "were innocent", and your overall resentment of the police will go up significantly, because you get to a point where these stories are so common-place that people start doubting the story put out by the police. Add a racial element, and the "us vs. them"-mentality gets to a boiling point where even a police force that makes no mistakes, and does their best to keep people save, may be seen as enemies by parts of the population living in those areas.

The fact that there are officers who are badly trained, racially motivated, and/or very confrontational magnifies that problem significantly (and gives validity to the resentment of the people), but it would still exist in areas with high crime rates, even if police didn't make mistakes..

OK, see that's what I thought you meant, and while a lot of what you say I agree with... that wasn't the point at all that I was making. An analogy I've used to illustrate my point is that if you have a game/hunting/nature preserve that is 3/4ths fishing lake, and 1/4 forest populated with deer, but all the sportsmen come to the preserve to primarily hunt deer, and spend very little of their time fishing, then at the end of the day, the sportsmen will have bagged lots of deer and not many fish. But it would be wrong to conclude from this that deer are more likely to engage in conduct that gets them caught by hunters than fish are.

But this is exactly what happens with crime statistics. The hunters (police) focus the lions share of their efforts on certain groups... the deer (poor) for instance... which results in them bagging (arresting/charging) more of that group... and then people point to those statistics of people bagged, and say that it shows that those groups are committing more crimes... when all it really shows is that those groups are getting more police attention.

Well, I used these terms lightly. What I mean with both are crime-ridden areas with mostly people who have only low-income jobs available to them (if they have jobs at all), and little chance to move up in the american society.

So again, by "what I mean with both" you are saying that both terms, "poor areas" and "ghettos" mean the same thing in your mind... so when you say "poor areas" you are talking about the same thing as when you say "ghettos" right? And what you have in mind when you say either is the same thing... "crime-ridden areas with mostly people who have only low-income jobs", right?

Assuming that is correct... do you draw a distinction between places "with mostly people who have only low-income jobs" that are also "crime-ridden", and places "with mostly people who have only low-income jobs" that are not "crime-ridden"? Or do you consider the two to go hand in hand? In other words, is the "crime-ridden" part superfluous? Are places with "with mostly people who have only low-income jobs", generally also "crime ridden" by default?

 

[Berzerker]

You don't need to make somebody up. You can go find the thread before and after LaVoy was killed. Pace the hostility towards "yokel haram" then realize it takes approximately that level of hate and fear to justify killing Trayvon without losing sleep.

Didn't you cite hate and fear as justification for murdering neighborhood watch people? Self defense justified killing Martin, not hate and fear. And if LaVoy went for his gun after telling the cops he'd rather die than be imprisoned, then the cop was justified killing him.

 

[Farm Boy]

Situations can be intentionally created which then result in justifiable death. You'll note I referred to it in terms of justifiability. But you're going to recognize beforehand when somebody is building that situation against somebody you're inclined to identify with. Stalking somebody around like a rapist until they get scared enough to be violent is one such. Everybody inclined to identify with Martin is going to go "WTH is that insane butthole doing?" Oh, so it got the black kid killed, no duh. Just like I knew we were going to get a dead hick out of Oregon. That is how these things are structured. That is how they play out. That's the structure people are mad about. That's the bigotry, the prejudice, the racism.

But yes, if you want to come after me on that statement, if "neighborhood watch" people started following my son around town, knowing this is a concealed carry state, I'd be inclined to go get a firearm, and I'd be inclined to be ready to point it at them.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

And if LaVoy went for his gun after telling the cops he'd rather die than be imprisoned, then the cop was justified killing him.

How about we shortcut to the end of the discussion and just all recognize that by shortening this to "The cop was justified" Berzerker could and would apply it to every case. Save him from having to repeat himself so much.

 

[Lexicus]

Just like I knew we were going to get a dead hick out of Oregon. That is how these things are structured. That is how they play out. That's the structure people are mad about. That's the bigotry, the prejudice, the racism.

I really, genuinely, have absolutely no idea how you think LaVoy and Trayvon's deaths are even close to comparable.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I really, genuinely, have absolutely no idea how you think LaVoy and Trayvon's deaths are even close to comparable.

In that they were both predictable outcomes they are comparable.

 

[Farm Boy]

I really, genuinely, have absolutely no idea how you think LaVoy and Trayvon's deaths are even close to comparable.

Of course you don't. You don't have a frame of reference that allows you to think he did anything other than ask for it. Do you think people are lying to you when they say Trayvon asked for it?

 

[Berzerker]

But yes, if you want to come after me on that statement, if "neighborhood watch" people started following my son around town, knowing this is a concealed carry state, I'd be inclined to go get a firearm, and I'd be inclined to be ready to point it at them.

So hate and fear justify murder... Sounded like you were criticizing hate and fear just now.

How about we shortcut to the end of the discussion and just all recognize that by shortening this to "The cop was justified" Berzerker could and would apply it to every case. Save him from having to repeat himself so much.

I dont choose violent criminals for my martyrs in the effort against police brutality. If you think I'm a rubber stamp for the cops, check out threads about Tamir Rice, Eric Garner and John Crawford.

 

[Lexicus]

Of course you don't. You don't have a frame of reference that allows you to think he did anything other than ask for it. Do you think people are lying to you when they say Trayvon asked for it?

No, I don't tend to think they are lying, but I have observed their positions to be largely based on lies. Berzerker provides a good example of this: he got the facts of the case wrong, and it wasn't just a mistake. It was a lie, or series of lies, he got from somewhere.

Right now I am inclined to think that comparing LaVoy to Martin is a rhetorical act of racist violence given the completely different contexts. If you have a 'frame of reference' that would, uh, allow me to think otherwise, please lay it out.

 

[Farm Boy]

You don't get people killed over stupid stuff. We remove people from the force who chase when it isn't necessary to chase. You don't need to bust into the back of a car when you can keep people penned up or wait out the violence in the first place. Everybody else was arrested, without violence, but for the high speed chase of choice. Like I said they'd be. But sure. Go with I'm being "violently rhetorically racist." You'll have company from good neighborhoods.

So hate and fear justify murder... Sounded like you were criticizing hate and fear just now.

If you think I am criticizing things that justify murder... thank God. That's a good place to start from, there.

 

[Lexicus]

So what exactly was the "stupid stuff" that LaVoy was killed over? '

But sure. Go with I'm being "violently rhetorically racist." You'll have company from good neighborhoods.

Company from bad neighborhoods, too, but that's neither here nor there.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm not retyping it less than three posts later. I'm out for now. But I hope you have a nice night!

 

[Timsup2nothin]

<hands in air> I'm out.

I for one will neither shoot you nor asphyxiate you.

 

[Synobun]

I for one will neither shoot you nor asphyxiate you.

It's only badge licking in the sup2nothin household.

 

[Berzerker]

No, I don't tend to think they are lying, but I have observed their positions to be largely based on lies. Berzerker provides a good example of this: he got the facts of the case wrong, and it wasn't just a mistake. It was a lie, or series of lies, he got from somewhere.

Right now I am inclined to think that comparing LaVoy to Martin is a rhetorical act of racist violence given the completely different contexts. If you have a 'frame of reference' that would, uh, allow me to think otherwise, please lay it out.

What facts did I get wrong?