Your "contribution" was to mock the idea, in a thread full of people who oppose protests and equivocate about the reasons for police killings, that anyone needs to say "black lives matter" because it should be so obvious that they do based on *checks notes* Google search results (which, again, was a strawman invented by another conservative). The President of the United States, who has nearly half the country behind him, called the words "black lives matter" a "symbol of hate". Your "contribution" could not be more wrong.

I do appreciate you challenging Kel's consistently false narrative, fwiw.

lagtight,

Quite frankly, I don't care how many times you've said killer cops are evil, just like I don't really care how many times bahbahmickey says he's not a Trump supporter. If you're arguing on the side of killer cops, you're supporting them. This all got started when I chimed in about the gross injustice that was the murder of Philando Castile, and your reply to me, that cops don't often murder Black people who either don't have a rap sheet or who aren't currently up to no good, was pretty clearly a statement that I should not be so upset about the murder of Philando. Now, as best I can surmise, there are only two reasons why that statement would be one you'd use to tell someone that they shouldn't be so upset about the murder of Philando Castile: one, that he had it coming, or two, that the murder of Philando Castile is acceptably rare, because it's one of the few exceptions to the usual cases where cops murder Black people, like when they're shoplifting, or if they tried to use a fake $20 bill, or if they had a marijuana arrest a few years ago. It sounds like you did actually know Philando hadn't done anything wrong, so that rules out #1. #2 is a morally abhorrent position also! There is no number "close to" but above zero of murders of innocent Black people murdered by the cops that people should not be all that upset about, especially when the cops get off, and also, people should be outraged over cops who kill Black people who committed petty crimes, even if they're caught in the act, even if they resist arrest. Like I was saying at the outset, they should be required to try deescalation rather than going to immediate use of lethal force, like we've seen time and time again.

I hope I don't regret this, but....

You really should take a look at what leads people to make obvious statements. In many cases, it's based on insecurity, and the statements are being used to boost their own self-esteem. For the statement "Black Lives Matter" to be meaningful, unless it is being ironical, it can not be obvious, or true, and you want to make it true. The implicit premise you have to accept for it to have power is, that black lives don't seem to matter. The Google search results do show people care, in large numbers, and black lives do matter, or at least George Floyd's life mattered, and any other black person that's been killed by cops and received national attention. It's a reality people are more concerned with black people getting shot by police than white people. The mission has been accomplished. Black lives matter. Thing brings us back to the initial point, why do people keep saying it?

Like, what point are you getting across with that statement? It's obvious black lives matter, there is empirical evidence to support that.

Then you have to deal with politics:


That's enormously contentious position that people of all races, religions, gender, etc disagree with and when their slogan is made out to be harmless virtue everyone can agree on, when many people find that mission to be destructive, you got issues, and it's not because of straw mans, it's because they've taken a rather innocuous statement, turned into a virtue, and attached all sorts illiberal missions behind it.

I do mock it, and it's because it's polarizing, destructive and not helpful to the cause they purportedly care about. That message is about trying to dictate broader societal norms through moral policing, not black lives. They created a cult based on an altruistic message in order to facilitate a much deeper societal upheaval that betrays that altruistic message. That's devious, and they fund raise on the initial altruistic message.

Seems kind of close

The bolded is the most accurate form of this claim you've made - the rest is highly debatable. For example, a large number of search results alone says nothing other than that George Floyd's name has appeared a lot on the internet. It doesn't say anything about context (obviously the vast majority of context is about protests and not about George Floyd the person) or sentiment (protests are highly controversial, tons of people oppose them, yet you assert the fact that people write about them at all is prima facie evidence that "black lives matter").

Well, some people are, many of whom are the people already disposed to caring more about that. Many people are not. You've seen many of those people in this very forum, linking to FBI crime statistics to say "we should not care more about black people getting shot by police". It's obviously not a given, so why is it controversial or surprising to you that people continue to say those three words?

I read the "black lives matter"/"all lives matter" conversation as shorthand for larger statements. "Black lives matter" says "black lives matter too, and we live in a country that does not treat them equally". People who respond with "all lives matter" are rejecting that premise entirely - "all lives matter, black lives are not special or different or uniquely under attack". Why is it surprising to you that people would continue to repeat that premise, in the face of others who deny it?


Regarding the rest, the words "black lives matter" and the organization Black Lives Matter are not the same thing.

1. Why are you using the abundance of search results in 2020 to discredit a group founded in 2013? The search results would look very different in 2013!

2. Search results don't distinguish between genuine statements that black lives matter and trolling about black lives matter, or between black lives mattering and discussions of the organization(s) Black Lives Matter. You assume that all those search results are positive affirmations of black lives mattering, and that is obviously not true.

3. Internet chatter is hollow anyway. If police officers who murder black people don't go to jail for it, then black lives don't matter, no matter how many people say "black lives matter" on the internet.

Since any response to you would likely have you continue lying and/or representing what I've said on this topic, I will do EVERYONE a favor (you, me, WN, and all the readers of this thread) by not responding to ANY of your posts in ANY thread.

EDIT: **** it. I'm not responding to your deflections.

??? This is hardly a deflection, and I think it's very relevant to the sort of thing I mentioned about how many people reject the premise of "black lives matter". You seem to want everyone to be quiet about saying "black lives matter" already as if it's reached some critical mass of popularity that means people can all go home, regardless of whether or not we live in a world where the cop who murdered Philando Castile can get away with it.

Going back to your earlier post, the measure of whether a black person's life mattered appears to be how much media attention their death received ("or at least George Floyd's life mattered, and any other black person that's been killed by cops and received national attention"), with a lot less consideration of how much their lives mattered to the police who killed them at the moment they were killed.

Grunching: Utopia, delayed.....for now.

This is where we run into problems. I explicitly stated why and what I'm being critical of, MrWookie's, nor your post addresses any of those criticisms. Like, I asked, what purpose does it serve today? What's it accomplishing? I laid out what I thought it was accomplishing. Neither of you contend with that.


To be fair, MrWookie did indicate a standard of sorts on what constitutes mattering to him, in order to attack my premise, and that's where you guys give no ground. It has to fit a subjective standard that YOU determine, while giving no consideration to empirical evidence that demonstrates they do matter, you people are dismissive of any standard that does not comport to your way of thinking. Which is cool, but we are not going to get anywhere if you give no credence to a premise that is reasonable. Media attention is a indicator of what people care about. Obviously, you don't accept that premise.

The argument you both are are making is, black lives don't matter in the way you want them to matter. That's not unreasonable, but it's also not what is conveyed with "black lives matter".

This is really rich. You are 10x more emotional about the news than your average American.

Not sure if it's more narcissistic or illiberal to try and dismiss substantive criticisms of your main argument as deflections.

You attacked my premise, not my argument. You don't think media attention is an indicator of what people care about. That criticism is so absurd, it's pointless to engage. Its deflection to red herring, an objectively insubstantial one at that.

Didn't I?

I mean, "continuing to push their argument against their opponents" isn't a ground-breaking answer or anything, but I think it's a pretty legitimate reason. I'm not 100% sure what you thought it was accomplishing, was it the bit at the end of your post about polarization, it being destructive, etc? I mean, you're entitled to that opinion obviously, but Area Man Disagrees With How Group He Opposes Protests For Their Message, same as it ever was throughout history.

It sounds like the disagreement here is that you think we mean "matter" in a way that isn't what the word "matter" actually means, whereas you're using it correctly? Do I have that right?

Like, black lives objectively do matter, it's been proven, QED, and the people who keep saying "black lives matter" don't understand they're saying something redundant?

Whose denying that black lives matter?

Nope. I made no judgement on which is correct. I do make the judgment that there is many ways to interpret what it means for something to matter, to which you explicitly indicated there was only one standard, yours, and everyone else is being idiosyncratic. However, "mattering" is subjective.

You'll hate it, but it's an attempt at a snuck premise to assert your interpretation of "matter" as the right one, not vice versa. You don't accept multiple interpretations as valid.

This is why MrWookies post was deflection. This is banal minuta that has nothing to do with what we are talking about, and it has no basis on rational discourse, and actively promotes irrational discourse. Do we really need to argue over whether or not "mattering" is a subjective thing? Obviously, it is.

"Who's"

I am. I deny that Black lives matter in America, certainly not to the extent that white lives do.

leftists would proly be more sucessful if they did subscribe to such believes. thats proly the only way to actually beat the murderous people in charge currently.

I know. You get the irony? Black lives don't/didn't matter to the left.

the right keeps millions of people at subsistence living so that they can continue to extract profit from them. this results in millions of people dying from treatable diseases, from housing instability, from malnutrition, from crimes of desperation, from pollution, and on and on.

and yes, the wars. so many wars.

it could be that the only way to beat such a cruel ruler is to become more cruel.

why even give the guy a response.

anyone that says this

is completely incapable of empathy and really shouldnt be afforded any rights in society. leftists have catered to these repulsive imbeciles for far too long. just as the right enjoys removing black youths from society at every opportunity, I think it is time that the left looks to limit the influence these disgusting bootlickers are allowed.

There's some truth to what they're saying but I don't agree with their conclusions because they're referring to a relatively small but very vocal segment of society re progressive activists.

I doubt we're going back to a more laissez-faire model but nor do I see us heading towards an implosion. My range for where we're heading is basically between where we're at and the Scandinavian models, the latter of which I don't see as entrepreneurial hell.

Okay? I don't have a problem with this, but since you have a problem with everyone who says "black lives matter", it doesn't exactly read like you endorse their view of "mattering".

The same thing happens in reverse when you say "look at Google search results, black lives obviously do matter." You're using your definition of "matter", and discarding what protesters mean when they say "black lives matter".

Hell, go look at your original post from the other thread, where you mockingly said "Imagine thinking black lives don't matter." That statement implicitly frames your definition as the correct one! Such a statement refuses to consider the ways in which protesters might mean "matter". It's plainly false that you've made no judgements about which one is correct.

I'm just posting my perspective. I'm not asserting anything as correct.