Why "All Lives Matters" is wrong

[Farm Boy]

Most white people I've talked to about Michael Brown believe the official story. A young man who tried to take a police officer's gun, and was killed. Which is a resolution they don't usually like, but find acceptable. They want people who rob gas stations and attempt to take police officer's guns to be locked up, or dead. That's really ok. But Eric Garner? A man working hard killed over a tobacco sales regulation by the City of New York? They get mad. In the way you want them to.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This doesn't make sense. Identifying as a rationalist just means that a person has made it their goal to evaluate claims rationally, it doesn't mean they're good at it or actually following through with it as much as they would like to.

You can call somebody a bad rationalist, or be skeptical of their ability to be a rationalist. Claiming that somebody is not a rationalist on the other hand is claiming that you know better what they thrive for than they do.

"identifying as a rationalist" can be, and often is, a ploy. Motivated by similar logic to the racist who identifies as a nationalist because it "sounds better." It is often a method to claim added credibility and nothing more.

Is it a bad thing that I have no idea what you're even talking about here? Sounds like an attempt of a personal attack though.

You mean like when you suggested that Summerswerd was an authoritarian? That kind of personal attack? As to having no idea what I'm talking about, that's not surprising. People who have torched their own credibility are always the last to know.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Most white people I've talked to about Michael Brown believe the official story. A young man who tried to take a police officer's gun, and was killed. Which is a resolution they don't usually like, but find acceptable. They want people who rob gas stations and attempt to take police officer's guns to be locked up, or dead. That's really ok. But Eric Garner? A man working hard killed over a tobacco sales regulation by the City of New York? They get mad. In the way you want them to.

I believe the official story. Cop saw a black guy walking after dark and stopped to investigate because he considers being black after dark to be suspicious. Conveniently it was determined that the black man had indeed committed a crime after the fact.

During the course of his harassment stop the cop defied what should be department policy, and is recognized as good police procedure by almost all cops, by approaching a suspect who was on foot while still in his vehicle. This presented the cop's own car door as a weapon of opportunity that made it possible for what should have been a routine stop to escalate into a life or death confrontation.

Since it was a black person that wound up dead the FPD sees no problem with this, as harassing, beating, and now killing of blacks is in keeping with the long standing general philosophy of their department. Also in keeping with department policy immediate actions to sanitize the reporting took precedence over any investigation. This effort was backed by the local DA's office, which has a record indicating a similar policy on police violence.

Did I miss anything?

 

[Ryika]

I still find this Washington Post Article about the "Hands Up Don't Shoot"-thing to be the most detailed and neutral (despite it's somewhat baity headline).

"identifying as a rationalist" can be, and often is, a ploy. Motivated by similar logic to the racist who identifies as a nationalist because it "sounds better." It is often a method to claim added credibility and nothing more.

That's once again just your interpretation of what he meant by the things he said. You're ignoring his intentions and just assume what you think are the "most likely" intentions.

You mean like when you suggested that Summerswerd was an authoritarian? That kind of personal attack?

I did not call him an Authoritarian, I said that what he wrote was very authoritarian in my opinion.
Which I don't think can even be disputed, how else would you describe telling somebody what they can identify as?

As to having no idea what I'm talking about, that's not surprising. People who have torched their own credibility are always the last to know.

I'm active in many forums and the thing is, the only people accusing me of "having lost my credibility" are the people on the far ends of the political spectrum, whether it's the left or the right depends on the discussion. Sometimes it's both.

Reality is, what you, or anyone for that matter, thinks about my "credibility" is of no concern to me. I say what I think, and I ask the questions I think will yield me interesting answers to think about. I like to play devil's advocate sometimes, so those questions don't always line up with my own ideological leanings. In some cases I even change my opinions, or admit (to myself or openly) that I went too far to one side in the heat of the moment - blasphemy, I know.

 

[Farm Boy]

I believe the official story. Cop saw a black guy walking after dark and stopped to investigate because he considers being black after dark to be suspicious. Conveniently it was determined that the black man had indeed committed a crime after the fact.

During the course of his harassment stop the cop defied what should be department policy, and is recognized as good police procedure by almost all cops, by approaching a suspect who was on foot while still in his vehicle. This presented the cop's own car door as a weapon of opportunity that made it possible for what should have been a routine stop to escalate into a life or death confrontation.

Since it was a black person that wound up dead the FPD sees no problem with this, as harassing, beating, and now killing of blacks is in keeping with the long standing general philosophy of their department. Also in keeping with department policy immediate actions to sanitize the reporting took precedence over any investigation. This effort was backed by the local DA's office, which has a record indicating a similar policy on police violence.

Did I miss anything?

Yes. I still want people who rob stores and grab for an officer's weapon locked up or dead. And people who google about BLM and HUDS read about Michael Brown and agree. Even if the dig-in makes it an appropriate example of institutional prejudice. Which it is. Which is why it's weak of me to complain about a preference between the two, which I lead with.

I can't breathe actually gets white people, not tuned in or particularly interested in tuning in, mad in the way you want them to be mad. It just works better. But New York didn't riot the same. It's not a bad enough neighborhood these days, I guess.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yes. I still want people who rob stores and grab for an officer's weapon locked up or dead. And people who google about HUDS read about Michael Brown and agree. Even if the dig-in makes it an appropriate example of institutional prejudice. Which it is. Which is why it's weak of me to complain about a preference between the two, which I lead with.

I can't breathe actually gets white people, not tuned in or particularly interested in tuning in, mad in the way you want them to be mad. It just works better. But New York didn't riot the same. It's not a bad enough neighborhood these days, I guess.

I agree that it does work better. I just really wish that it didn't. Because the conclusion that you suggest about New York being "not a bad enough neighborhood" is, IMO not accurate.

The reason that "New York didn't riot the same" is that the NYPD as an institution has earned a lot more leeway than the FPD. While, incident to incident, "I can't breathe" may represent better than "Hands up don't shoot," it is the institutionalized harassment that creates the environment for a riot. People who live under the watch of law enforcement Ferguson style need to realize that they are in a powder keg that can be touched off at any time...even by an incident that "turns out" to have been misunderstood.

The LA riots happened not because people were outraged about Rodney King getting beaten. They happened because pretty much everyone knew the LAPD was going to get caught beating somebody eventually, because they did it all the time, and that's what people were outraged about. They were outraged before they even knew Rodney King's name, just like people in Ferguson were outraged before they ever heard "hands up don't shoot."

 

[Farm Boy]

I agree. I suppose if you want an arguable takeaway, which shouldn't really matter but might, if somebody wants to argue BLM in the light of HUDS with you, don't argue about Michael. They'll have brought him up already. Counter with Eric, then use him to make the point you just made. It works.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

In some cases I even change my opinions, or admit (to myself or openly) that I went too far to one side in the heat of the moment - blasphemy, I know.

I'd guess it is more like an outright lie than blasphemy. The kind people who claim "oh I'm a centrist" usually tell to try to gain credibility. However, just like I said before, a record of actions outweighs any claims.

 

[metalhead]

Most white people I've talked to about Michael Brown believe the official story. A young man who tried to take a police officer's gun, and was killed. Which is a resolution they don't usually like, but find acceptable. They want people who rob gas stations and attempt to take police officer's guns to be locked up, or dead. That's really ok.

This is why I find it such a sorry statement on our society, even setting aside the issues of race which of course you can't really do. People ought to demand professionalism and restraint from the police. No matter which version of the story you believe, Michael Brown died because the officer made a series of very poor decisions. People should not be OK with that.

I mean, your point is well-taken with regards to how one should go about persuading others, it just saddens me that our society is one where an authoritarian with a badge and a gun gets more leeway for bad behavior, when they ought to get less considering they have an unqualified (in practice, most of the time) license to use deadly force and are supposedly a trained professional.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I agree. I suppose if you want an actionable takeaway, which shouldn't really matter but might, if somebody wants to argue BLM in the light of HUDS with you, don't argue about Michael. They'll have brought him up already. Counter with Eric, then use him to make the point you just made. It works.

I usually use the guy the FPD brought in and beat the crap out of on a warrant that turned out not to be for him, then when they found out they actually had no warrant arrested for destruction of city property because he bled on their uniforms. That pretty well explains why people in Ferguson were so ready to riot that it really doesn't matter what the actual circumstances of the Brown case were.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yes, if you can paint the picture because you've been given the time, that works. Eric gets to the point. Suffocation is an accurate, visceral frame. It's scarier than guns are and a pretty good metaphor for the situation. Which people will get before they get it.

"I can't even sell a damned cigarette because some a-hole will kill me for it? In the middle of our proudest city?" Even flips the teams man, for the people who think in terms of teams. It lets them attack a foe they're willing to(NYC antismoking liberals and crushing regulation), and sides them with Eric. It lets them buy the "Oh oops, I'm sorry" if they need to, and sides them with Eric. Which might be the best reason for why it groks home on relatively effective level.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yes, if you can paint the picture because you've been given the time, that works. Eric gets to the point. Suffocation is an accurate, visceral frame too. It's scarier than guns are and a pretty good metaphor for the situation. Which people will get before they get it.

There was a picture of the guy's battered and bloody face captioned "taken into custody in error, later charged with bleeding on the cops" that was pretty effective as a conversation starter at the time. I really prefer to get the focus off of the killings as much as possible. Too many people get focused on that and then fall out because of the lightning strike aspect of it.

 

[SkeleTony]

He's saying we don't know you... and when you make a comment attempting to define yourself, like "I am a rationalist" or "I am a professional tennis player" or "I am His Holiness the Pope", to a group of people who don't know you... you're going to be disbelieved... so your best bet is to just talk to us and let us decide whether you're an X or Y or Z, rather than try to inform us of something we have absolutely no basis to believe. Timsup and Traitorfish said the same thing to you... just more directly.

Ah...ok, I see what you are saying now. Honestly though my intentions were not anything dishonest or otherwise 'douchebaggy'. In the past at other forums it has served me well to inform people where I am coming from because otherwise they just assume all sorts of bizarre things about me (i.e. "Nihilist", "Fedora-wearing hipster", "Liberal extremist" etc.). Also identifying as a rationalist is not akin to claiming to be a professional tennis player/famous musician or celebrity of any sort but that is an aside.

It is refreshing to hear/read someone say that they would rather hear what other peoples positions/arguments are and judge from there though.

 

[Ryika]

I'd guess it is more like an outright lie than blasphemy. The kind people who claim "oh I'm a centrist" usually tell to try to gain credibility. However, just like I said before, a record of actions outweighs any claims.

Well first of all, I'm not a Centrist.

Political Compass tests put me at around ~ -5/-5. If anything, then I'm mostly a liberal - and a progressive. To a far lesser extend though, because I often find myself agreeing with the issues and the need to create change, but not with the solutions. More generally, I do tend to find these hard labels to be rather useless, because political issues aren't really as split by party lines here in Germany as they are in the United States.

Secondly, you're again arguing for what people "usually do things for" instead of actually listening to what was being said. I don't really remember who you are and how you usually act (at least not as good as you seem to be remembering me), but from your posts here it seems to me that you're constantly interpreting things in the least charitable way possible. Why you feel the need to do that, I don't know.

 

[SkeleTony]

I can smell the neckbeard from here

And right on cue someone decides to assume bizarre crap about me or introduce themselves with insults.

 

[Lexicus]

Let's take that case where a black man driving a big car is pulled over by a young white police officer and decides he is just going to try his luck fleeing in his car rather than wait for the cop to arrest him on outstanding warrants or whatever. Of course the cop shot him and IIRC is now in Prison for it (as he should be). What if he had let the criminal just run, perhaps fearing being convicted by the media as being a 'racist cop-murderer'? And what if that black driver who is fleeing police decides he really has to get out of there FAST (fearing choppers and massive numbers of police cars joining the fray) so he hits 50-75 MPH, ignoring red lights etc. He ends up running over two small children trying to cross a street, undoubtedly killing them both. Now he REALLY needs to get the **** out of there! He goes even faster, taking corners no one should be taking at that speed and runs over an elderly woman in a church parking lot before cr5ashing into an SUV killing a mother trying to seat belt her kids into the vehicle.

Now we have a criminal who has killed two small children and two adults and injured who knows how many and the cries become "Why did that cop just let that criminal drive off like that?!".

It is certainly no simple matter and has no simple answers but let's not be lazy in how we characterize the whole thing.

This has to be one of the most sickeningly fascist things I've ever read on this board.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I did not call him an Authoritarian, I said that what he wrote was very authoritarian in my opinion.

Ah, the old "I'm not calling you X, I'm calling the thoughts in your mind as expressed in writing X" defense... just as lame as it ever was... and yet, never gets old.

BTW, I'm not calling you lame for making that tired, lame attempt to use a lame excuse to deflect from a lame argument delivered in defense of another lame argument... I'm just calling your words lame. LMAO (at your words, not you). Also... everything we say is "in our opinion"... Adding "in my opinon" to an insult doesn't make it any less of an insult. For example, your argument (and your attempts to defend it) are lame... in my opinion. See how pointless?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Ah...ok, I see what you are saying now. Honestly though my intentions were not anything dishonest or otherwise 'douchebaggy'. In the past at other forums it has served me well to inform people where I am coming from because otherwise they just assume all sorts of bizarre things about me (i.e. "Nihilist", "Fedora-wearing hipster", "Liberal extremist" etc.). Also identifying as a rationalist is not akin to claiming to be a professional tennis player/famous musician or celebrity of any sort but that is an aside.

It is refreshing to hear/read someone say that they would rather hear what other peoples positions/arguments are and judge from there though.

Just for clarity, this forum is more of a long term haunt than most. I am a drive by troll at Breitbart and know that every comment I make there will have to be weighed on what is said in the moment because no one becomes a "known quantity" in that morass. Here I am known, so I can rely on credibility I have established over time...and I am held to account for inconsistencies. It's a different environment. I hope you enjoy it and hang around long enough to not have to say that you are a rationalist and that you are just recognized as one.

 

[SkeleTony]

This doesn't make sense. Identifying as a rationalist just means that a person has made it their goal to evaluate claims rationally, it doesn't mean they're good at it or actually following through with it as much as they would like to.

You can call somebody a bad rationalist, or be skeptical of their ability to be a rationalist. Claiming that somebody is not a rationalist on the other hand is claiming that you know better what they thrive for than they do.

This is what I would want to say had I better communication skills. *thumbs up*

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Ah, the old "I'm not calling you X, I'm calling the thoughts in your mind as expressed in writing X" defense... just as lame as it ever was... and yet, never gets old.

Unfortunately that has become a standard interpretation of the rules here.