As usual, you’re either racist or ignorant. Plenty of people feel that “black lives matter” is an inherently racist cause as well.
What’s that, you say that is wrong and isnt the intended message? But we’ve been told over and over and over that it’s not about what you intended, it’s how the recipient takes it that matters. Which means if I feel offended, then you said something offensive whether you meant it that way or not. Right? But instead, it’s also racist or ignorance for me to think the same standard would apply both ways…
It seems you are suggesting that “black lives matter” is as offensive and racist to some people as “white lives matter” or “all lives matter” to others?
My answer would be that those who find the statement “black lives matter” offensive or racist simply don’t understand or don’t wish to understand its purpose. My understanding is that its purpose is to highlight the fact that black people are disproportionately killed by white cops and that it has been happening for a long time and nothing is changing. It calls out the society’s implicit and explicit biases against blacks. It doesn’t say that other lives don’t matter or that black lives matter more than others. It only says that they matter, because some in the society keep thinking and believing that they do not, and this needs to change. I don’t speak for the movement, obviously, that is just my understanding. It’s anti-racist. But I suppose you’re going to argue that anti-racism is racism.
I’m still confused. Is it the recipient responsible for understanding the message being sent? Or is it the sender’s responsibility to not offend the recipient?
Because it seems like whenever I’m offended by something, I’m just ignorant and not understanding. But when someone takes my comment as being offensive, I’m a terrible person no matter what I intended or how badly my meaning was misunderstood.
You seem to be using this phrase out of context. If, for example, more people of type X are working at a particular job, or score well on some test, or excel at a particular sport, or end up richer than average, or …, than you’d expect given the number of people of type X in your population, what do you logically conclude? It’s just a fact that that group X is has a better outcome in whatever field it was than average. It’s also a fact by logic that if X is better than average, there must also be some other group disjoint from X where that other group does worse than average.
The world is full of many such examples and until recently nobody cared at all about them. Men are taller than average, a lot of gay people work in fashion, people who go to top colleges often end up rich, etc. consequently, women are shorter than average, fewer straight people worth in fashion than you might expect, people who don’t go to top colleges end up less rich, etc. I don’t think many reasonable people disagree that these differences exist.
The thing that generates a lot of contention is when causes are proposed to explain why a particular difference exists. If someone says “the reason group X does better than average at Blah is because they’re stronger or smarter or more hard working or are culturally encouraged to achieve in Blah or they have X Group Privilege, or…”, then you could reply that their proposed cause for the observed difference in outcomes might not be the real cause but merely a correlation because perhaps there is some other true cause that really underlies the reason the difference exists.
You said it was a fact that “no racial group is superior to another group”. I’m not sure exactly what you mean by this, specifically, so I’m having a hard time imagining what the scientific proof would be for such a claim (and claims without proof are faith).
“No race is superior to another” is not the same thing as saying “Every person (or race) is identical in every way and completely equivalent and interchangeable in every single trait and ability.”
…
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights".
Yes, I’m aware that there was not exactly a consensus at the time that “all men” referred to all humans… Yes, that’s actually on-topic…
No more so than in any other case. Actually, I’d say there are far more “lines drawn” towards causation regarding black men running really fast, than there is of “white” or “black” being a consistent factor in cop shootings.
Well if you’re talking about equality as a matter of law (and Bend3r’s constitutional comment likewise), then we already have that. Discrimination based on race is presently illegal(1), so it’s odd to talk about “racial superiority” in that context. Criminals are equal before the law, but they should also get what they deserve regardless of their color or creed.
It’s also hard to see how, taking that as the basis for your view, why someone saying “all lives matter” must be against equality, say in the context of law enforcement actions, more than someone who singles out black lives to matter. Likewise, calls for “racial justice” seem to me to be more for racial favoritism, but I guess you could charitably interpret them as seeking to address perceived (if IMO unsupported) treatment under the implementation of the law.
——
1 - I see just last week CA is set to vote to specially allow allow, and if passed to implement, racial inequality under the law by repealing the ban on racial preferences and quotas in college admissions.
Indeed free speech took a big hit and censorship online has been ratcheted up noticeably in recent weeks to stifle any dissenting non-liberal opinions. If we sacrifice the basis of our democracy in favor of some people’s feelings, well, that’s a price the left is willing to pay. There’s an election to win after all.
I saw one of the newer Twitter competitors already had over a million new users after being featured as an alternative to the censorship and authoritarianism of Big Tech.
The slogan “all lives matter” was created and is used in opposition to “black lives matter”. You are looking at the meaning of the individual words (“black”, “all”) instead of looking at the meaning of the phrases in the context of the protests and the movement.
