Why "All Lives Matters" is wrong

[jackelgull]

Well, okay. But if the prospect of the bolded were sufficient to inhibit posting, CFCOT would never see a new thread again.

Tim gonna Tim. And Farm Boy gonna baffle.

well, it obviously didn't inhibit me from posting this, and i doubt it'd inhibit me from posting further. In fact tim and fb are incentives to post. FB posting in your thread is a badge of honor not shame. Even if you don't get it.

 

[metatron]

Let me just say this - yes there are more important and more meaningful conversations to be having about racism and liberal hypocrisy to be having, but i didn't have words for those topics. I have words for this topic. And even if I did have the words for that topic, what would it accomplish? Maybe some racist reactions, some reactions that don't get it, Tim being Tim, and maybe Farmboy saying some confusing things I don't get but assume are in good faith because i can't imagine fb ever acting in bad faith?

I'm not arguing for a change in topic. I'm not arguing for something else being more important.
I'm arguing that some of the perspectives in which this is approached don't stirke me as very promising, particularly when coming - as they often do - from white middle class people.
Like, the possibility that something may be bigger, so much so that there are many seemingly valid approaches that can be debated, tested etc. goes to the very nature of the word "systemic".

But sure, i may have lacked differentiation between my irritation about that comic and my tangential appreciation of your opening post.
If you feel my pivoting to one of BLM's core issues too much feels like a change in subject (which i can see, no less because it has been debated a lot on the board already),
i can try to comment more closely on the subject of your OP.
However i would be more incompetent at that, since the subject of my pivot has many things to it that are near-universal (like say, the game theory of cops interacting with a possibly armed suspect), while labor market regulations and the cultural subtext of names are more diverse, relative and ambiguous.
For starters minority groups, the urban poor, and the rural poor and the prejudices against these and their sterotypical given names overlap in somewhat different ways, in different societies. E.g. you may remember that the very name for the concept of name based discrimination in my culture hints at a different overlap between identity and class.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I'm arguing that some of the perspectives in which this is approached don't stirke me as very promising, particularly when coming - as they often do - from white middle class people.

Well then your argument fails by virtue of my perspective, doesn't it? I mean if that's the thrust of what your basing your argument on...

Or do you want to re-characterize/goalpost-move/cognitive-dissonance'size your argument now?

 

[metatron]

Well then your argument fails by virtue of my perspective, doesn't it? I mean if that's the thrust of what your basing your argument on...

Or do you want to re-characterize/goalpost-move/cognitive-dissonance'size your argument now?

Before i react to the passive aggresive mess:
Have you, by now, actually decided whether i and my posts and are totally beneath you or not.
Like, please figure that out with yourself and let me know.
Before you do, there's rather little point to this.

 

[Farm Boy]

Farmboy saying some confusing things

I'm usually happy to rephrase. I ran around outside a lot as a kid, I think I missed at least a partial yet significant amount of events wherever it was "middle class white people" and Sommer learned to speak with each other consistently on the same wavelength. Which is a really long and stupid way of saying, "That's on me, not on you."

 

[Sommerswerd]

Before i react to the passive aggresive mess:
Have you, by now, actually decided whether i and my posts and are totally beneath you or not.
Like, please figure that out with yourself and let me know.
Before you do, there's rather little point to this.

Well stated. The decision isn't mine to make, its yours... as I've already said. Trying to put it back on me is passive aggressive.... which is why I already responded to your post#102 (b/c it didn't have any disclaimers).

Again, if you think there's no point, I'm fine with that. That's not "passive aggressive" its aggressive-aggressive... as in I'm aggressively telling you that if you think (and keep saying) that there's no point/merit/accountability to your posts, then I can simply agree with you, and am perfectly willing to leave it at that, for the sake of keeping things funny.

 

[metatron]

Well stated. The decision isn't mine to make, its yours... as I've already said. Trying to put it back on me is passive aggressive.... which is why I already responded to your post#102 (b/c it didn't have any disclaimers).

Again, if you think there's no point, I'm fine with that. That's not "passive aggressive" its aggressive-aggressive... as in I'm aggressively telling you that if you think (and keep saying) that there's no point/merit/accountability to your posts, then I can simply agree with you, and am perfectly willing to leave it at that, for the sake of keeping things funny.

No.
Either you want to talk to me or not.
Right now you are just boring people with meta-communication.

But since we are apparently misunderstanding each other, let me rephrase the disclaimer for people who don't understand what a rant is:
"Disclaimer: Feel free to react to this post and disagree with it. Please refrain from being a knee-jerk two-bit partisan hack ignoramous (one way or the other) while you do. Thanks."

The choice is yours.

 

[Sommerswerd]

No. Either you want to talk to me or not. Right now you are just boring people with meta-communication. But since we are apparently misunderstanding each other, let me rephrase the disclaimer for people who don't understand what a rant is: "Disclaimer: Feel free to react to this post and disagree with it. Please refrain from being a knee-jerk two-bit partisan hack ignoramous (one way or the other) while you do. Thanks."

The choice is yours.

Obviously I want to talk to you... cause I'm talking to you. And I'm obviously not boring you, cause you keep responding. And since you are the one I'm talking to, me boring "people" is irrelevant, I'm not boring you. And calling it "meta-communication" is rhetorical misdirection. The point is that you tried to shield yourself from accountability for your post and got called out on it. Whether you consider that "meta" is irrelevant.

Also... its ironic that you came off to both Gori and jackiegull, as thinking this topic beneath you/unworthy of discussion but then accuse me of thinking "you and your posts are totally beneath me"... textbook projection. And while I'm at it... its also "passive-aggressive" for you to claim that nobody's opinion who disagrees with you is worthy of consideration cause "y'all are just a bunch of white-guys anyaway, what do you know about this"... textbook passive-aggressive well-poisoning.

So lest I be accused again of being "passive aggressive" again, let me be more direct... You are not arguing in good faith. Pre-emptively labeling anyone who might potentially disagree with you as a "knee-jerk two-bit partisan hack ignoramous" shows a clear unwillingness to hear contrary opinions. More well-poisoning, ie bad faith. You don't see that?

 

[metatron]

Obviously I want to talk to you... cause I'm talking to you. And I'm obviously not boring you, cause you keep responding. And since you are the one I'm talking to, me boring "people" is irrelevant, I'm not boring you. And calling it "meta-communication" is rhetorical misdirection. The point is that you tried to shield yourself from accountability for your post and got called out on it. Whether you consider that "meta" is irrelevant.

Also... its ironic that you came off to both Gori and jackiegull, as thinking this topic beneath you/unworthy of discussion but then accuse me of thinking "you and your posts are totally beneath me"... textbook projection. And while I'm at it... its also "passive-aggressive" for you to claim that nobody's opinion who disagrees with you is worthy of consideration cause "y'all are just a bunch of white-guys anyaway, what do you know about this"... textbook passive-aggressive well-poisoning.

So lest I be accused again of being "passive aggressive" again, let me be more direct... You are not arguing in good faith. Pre-emptively labeling anyone who might potentially disagree with you as a "knee-jerk two-bit partisan hack ignoramous" shows a clear unwillingness to hear contrary opinions. More well-poisoning, ie bad faith. You don't see that?

More meta communication.
You are still ignoring my explicit explanation of said disclaimer that evidently is hugely more important to you than it ever was to me.
So now the question would be: Why do you want to talk to me when you continue to actively ignore what i'm saying to you?

 

[Sommerswerd]

More meta communication. You are still ignoring my explicit explanation of said disclaimer that evidently is hugely more important to you than it ever was to me.
So now the question would be: Why do you want to talk to me when you continue to actively ignore what i'm saying to you?

I am not ignoring your "explicit explanations" ... any of them. Your explicit explanations are the basis of our conversation, because as I have said are strong indications of an unwillingness to debate/argue in good faith. But I will try anyway, here goes...

Again. Your "rant" as you describe it, is a bunch of baloney from top to bottom. I'm not going to start "pulling at the threads" as you called it, because you specifically asked that folks not do that. You asked that it be "taken on the whole" and that is exactly what I am doing. On the whole, your argument is baloney. You asked that we not "pull threads" so I am respecting your wishes. Plus, you've already labeled anyone who disagree with you as a "knee-jerk two-bit partisan hack ignoramous" without even hearing what they have to say. Can't you see that this would need to be addressed before we can have any serious debate on your position? Otherwise, as you say "there's little point"... and again, like I said... I am still willing to treat your position as a "rant" (ie not subject to any serious analysis or scrutiny), and just leave it at that. Isn't that what you wanted?

And again... you can keep using the word "meta" all you want... I categorically refuse to restrict the boundaries of my conversation to the parameters you are attempting to set by declaring as "meta" whatever you can't respond to.

 

[Farm Boy]

I thought rants were mostly, "I'm mad and would like to have a conversation without feeling judged." They're an emotive statement, a team building exercise.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I thought rants were mostly, "I'm mad and would like to have a conversation without feeling judged." They're an emotive statement, a team building exercise.

Yeah I can see that. I think you're right that this can be part of it. It's funny cause I think you can tell that I sorta got that, but I was in an aggressive-aggressive sort of mood.

So anyway in that case I guess I shouldn't have even responded... I should have just let it be. My apologies.

 

[Farm Boy]

Wouldn't it be a good opportunity to rant back? I know that I like to get me my swears in, and the lovely lady chastises me anytime I use those "non-prestige" dialects in front of my son. She's... she's probably in the right, there. Talking more normally is an advantage.

 

[metatron]

Ok, let's have the balance of your posts in this thread:

Spoiler :

Its dark matter not black matter... but I guess all matter looks alike right ?

So it all "looks" the same then

Also, "nitpick" is one word, not two hyphenated words... since we're "nitpicking."

Fine by me... Sounds like a great idea actually.

Funny anecdote... I went out to eat with my wife last week, and the waitress came over and as soon as she started talking I asked her if she was from Ohio. She seemed stunned for a moment, and then explained that people always think she is from the deep-south when she's really from Northeast Kentucky right on the border of Ohio and WV. She asked how I was able to pick that up, and I told her my family was from Ohio.

You can't call the question on a Motion that has just been seconded. The chair has to open the floor to discussion first. Then you call the question, and then the chair asks for a second to the calling of the question. Then we vote on calling the question. Then we vote on the Motion itself , but only if the calling of the question vote succeeds.

That's why Congress can't get anything done...

I'm ready to vote. I vote Yea if we're voting.

Looks like there's still discussion Also, technically it's Farm Boys fault for invoking Roberts rules

I'll call the question again.

Yea

So moved

Translation: "I don't want to take any responsibility or accountability for what I'm about to say but I really want to say it anyway to get it off my chest"

Fair enough... Everyone needs a place to vent without every word getting contradicted and analyzed, their feelings hurt, etc... I suggest marriage for that TBH... but hey, use whatever you can manage. If CFC is all you got... go with it. Translation: "I'm getting ready to say a bunch of baloney that I know is dubious/indefensible, but I don't want to be called out, challenged, debunked or refuted... I just want to get it off my chest..."

Fair enough... never gets old... I sincerely hope you felt better getting stuff off your chest.

Again... Translation: "I'm gonna poop in my hand and smear it all over this canvas... I'm acknowledging in advance via "disclaimer" and "rant" designation that this is what I'm doing... but you're still "perfectly welcome" to criticize my "art" if you want..."

No thanks matey... you already acknowledged its poop-smear on canvas with your "disclaimer and "rant" designation. Let me know when you're making a serious comment and I'll respond in kind.

As for your last sentence... just more of the same... if you want to use tiny font to indicate that its not to be responded to or taken seriously ... then fine, i'll oblige... no worries. Again... I highly recommend a husband, or wife, or girlfriend for that... but again that's me... you do you.

Well then your argument fails by virtue of my perspective, doesn't it? I mean if that's the thrust of what your basing your argument on...

Or do you want to re-characterize/goalpost-move/cognitive-dissonance'size your argument now?

Well stated. The decision isn't mine to make, its yours... as I've already said. Trying to put it back on me is passive aggressive.... which is why I already responded to your post#102 (b/c it didn't have any disclaimers).

Again, if you think there's no point, I'm fine with that. That's not "passive aggressive" its aggressive-aggressive... as in I'm aggressively telling you that if you think (and keep saying) that there's no point/merit/accountability to your posts, then I can simply agree with you, and am perfectly willing to leave it at that, for the sake of keeping things funny.

Obviously I want to talk to you... cause I'm talking to you. And I'm obviously not boring you, cause you keep responding. And since you are the one I'm talking to, me boring "people" is irrelevant, I'm not boring you. And calling it "meta-communication" is rhetorical misdirection. The point is that you tried to shield yourself from accountability for your post and got called out on it. Whether you consider that "meta" is irrelevant.

Also... its ironic that you came off to both Gori and jackiegull, as thinking this topic beneath you/unworthy of discussion but then accuse me of thinking "you and your posts are totally beneath me"... textbook projection. And while I'm at it... its also "passive-aggressive" for you to claim that nobody's opinion who disagrees with you is worthy of consideration cause "y'all are just a bunch of white-guys anyaway, what do you know about this"... textbook passive-aggressive well-poisoning.

So lest I be accused again of being "passive aggressive" again, let me be more direct... You are not arguing in good faith. Pre-emptively labeling anyone who might potentially disagree with you as a "knee-jerk two-bit partisan hack ignoramous" shows a clear unwillingness to hear contrary opinions. More well-poisoning, ie bad faith. You don't see that?

So you had essentially nothing to say about the topic and - apparently - mistook this thread for a chat box?
And you did so preemtively, with precognition that i would come along and ruin it for you?
Despite allegedly not being interested in debating the issue i managed to write loads more on the actual issue in a single post than you did in 13 posts, before i came along and after?
And for, like five posts you are now busy chastising said post of mine, while you have yet to write a single word about its actual substance?
And yet here you are, claiming you were interested in the topic and i was acting in bad faith and had no interest in debating it?

You're hosing me, right?

 

[Lexicus]

its actual substance?

By substance I'm assuming you mean hot air tho?

 

[metatron]

By substance I'm assuming you mean hot air tho?

So you don't like numbers. You'll make an excellent Republican one day.

 

[Farm Boy]

multipass

What was it that was annoying you in the first post that you'd like to talk about? You've got his attention, is the line drawing the point?

 

[Broken_Erika]

Why is it always hot air, why not warm air.

 

[Lexicus]

So you don't like numbers. You'll make an excellent Republican one day.

Good line, 7/10. Would steal it and use it as an insult against someone else.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Personally I had to watch several The Wire seasons twice. "Had to"/wanted to. It's a great show so I didn't mind, but I honestly missed a lot on the first watchthrough. The first time a lot of the ebonics just flew right over my head. I've watched two of the seasons three times even. Each time I pick up something new. I'm just not used to that dialect of English at all, so it's not easy to follow conversations. With British English it's a lot easier for me, but I watched a lot of Monty Python during my highschool years, so I "get" a lot of that type of comedy and what it's trying to get across

Thanks for the involuntary ego padding.
It is one of my inconsequential ambitions to be able to follow English media fluently (excepts songs - used enough from my childhood to not mind the actual lyrics). And The Wire made me capitulate and use English subs. But if someone like you struggles that much, I know I don't need to mind.

I do have to admit I have a hard time actually telling what people are saying if they get deep enough into southern or ebonics territory.

Imagine rural southern ebonics and 16-years-old me, who barely passed German school English.
They may as well have spoken Mongolian.

That is racist.

Yep it is.
I got it, too. I am not as self-righteous about it as him. And am sufficiently mindful of it to not get carried away or controlled by it. But it is still there. And I don't feel bad about it, I have to admit. I am going to associate stuff with how people talk and act, and it will often be an unfair association. But it is an association build on experience, as are many of my associations and to me the question is only how powerful I let it be. Rather than weather I have it.
Weather a black person talks heavy Ebonics or university English is going to influence my first impression, in one way or the other. I am not going to think "He stupid" or "He smart". But it will be noted for future reference, automatically.
In general, that is just how humans work.