BLM founder says all lives is racist

[Fox by the Sea]

in fairness, most lives don't matter.

 

[Forkfoot]

I already did, sweetheart, and you don't have to pretend like it's the first time.

Neither of those things are true.

 

[Corin7hian]

The sky is racist too. So is the sun and the moon, and asteroids.

Giraffes and antelopes and glaciers are racist.

Despite the 90% of the nonsense in this post I will point out that giraffe's are in fact racist pieces of shit. With their long ass condescending necks.

 

[IDL]

Despite the 90% of the nonsense in this post I will point out that giraffe's are in fact racist pieces of shit. With their long ass condescending necks.

They certainly look down on everyone who isn't a Giraffe

 

[Bald1]

You seem to be speaking of "all lives" as though it's a specific person or organization with a specific doctrine or creed. It isn't. It's something people say to rebut against the assertion that black lives matter.

Just in case you're not aware, I'm going to help you out a bit. All lives encompasses black lives as well as white, red, and whatever other colors you'd like to label people with. It's not a rebuttal, but an all inclusive statement. It's not an organization, but a true statement. How is this fact racist?

Of course black lives matter. Duh. Nobody is disputing that statement.

 

[Forkfoot]

Just in case you're not aware, I'm going to help you out a bit. All lives encompasses black lives as well as white, red, and whatever other colors you'd like to label people with. It's not a rebuttal, but an all inclusive statement. It's not an organization, but a true statement. How is this fact racist?

Of course black lives matter. Duh. Nobody is disputing that statement.

That's actually completely disingenuous, though. It's not like people were going around saying "all lives matter!" and then black people started yelling that black lives matter more. Black people started saying their lives matter and white people somehow took offense to that, and coined this disingenuous phrase as a "sit down and shut up" rebuttal to their assertion that black lives matter.

"Of course black lives matter. Duh. Nobody is disputing that statement." Great. Then why argue with them? Why contend with anything at all? Why not say "Of course! Yes. How can we help?"

 

[DizzyDaze]

Tell her to suck my white dick

Fuck these black people unwilling to accept responsibility and always blaming whites

 

[HAWTRIDDUM]

Despite the 90% of the nonsense in this post I will point out that giraffe's are in fact racist pieces of shit. With their long ass condescending necks.

Sounds like you are racist against giraffes for being racist.

 

[Madmick]

No you did not actually clearly defend that position. The rest of the sentence "in that it advocated this priority at the expense of other lives (some couched this in the reality that blacks aren't being murdered at a higher incidence per capita relative to their crime/confrontation rates, armed or unarmed, but that isn't necessarily required to argue the principle)" does not clearly explain why the assertion "black lives matter" is racist, unless by "the expense of other races" you literally mean that it will cost the lives of other races. I am sure that you do not mean that, so please explain what your definition of racism is and how BLM is guilty of it. It's already pretty obvious that your entire argument here is dependent upon your own personal definition of racism, so I'd like to get real clear on what that is before attacking it.

Why is "White Power" racist? Is it merely by association with neo-Nazi nationalist movements? Or-- like "Black Pride", as wielded by the Panthers, or "Brown Pride" on Cain's chest-- does the logic of falsely presenting something which only seeks to enrich and empower a single race reverberate with people who are unaware that they themselves are racist because they actually want to advance that race's influence and quality of life at the unavoidable expense of other races? It's not just a slogan; it's a call for redistribution. This call affects every race.

At their best, these calls can form movements which advocate for certain groups or minorities, such as the Civil Rights movement, which was unabashed in leveling accusations of inequality and injustice for blacks, not whites. The very nature of "Blacklivesmatters" begs the question, "Why must that be said? Don't all lives matter?" Thus, by its nature, it suggests inequality. It implies a call to action on the behalf of a single race.

It isn't important if that is necessarily correct or not. It's part of the dialogue I framed leading to the logical conclusion. It explains why the #ALM people probed #BLM on that matter, and #BLM responded with step #3.

Neither of those things are true.

And yet here you are desperately avoiding the argument. Now respond to thesis of post #33 in its entirety. It's time to put up or shut up.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

i understand the pts they try to make, but A) you can make them w/o coming across as hostile, whining, and entitled (just saying).

B) the implication that all of white america is somehow responsible for the plight of african americans is absolutely absurd. So that goes for whites in poverty as well? What if you're a relatively recent white immigrant? my family came to the US after WWII from Norway and Ireland respectively, i'm failing to see how I nor anyone in my ancestry is somehow responsible for any of that?

 

[Trollgrappler]

She's just following the Trump strategy of saying startling things to stay relevant because outside of crashing rallies they have no way to stay in the news cycle. This isn't an indictment of them because I support any group that challenges police brutality but it's just that we don't have long attention spans anymore.

 

[Forkfoot]

Why is "White Power" racist? Is it merely by association with neo-Nazi nationalist movements? Or-- like "Black Pride", as wielded by the Panthers, or "Brown Pride" on Cain's chest-- does the logic of falsely presenting something which only seeks to enrich and empower a single race reverberate with people who are unaware that they themselves are racist because they actually want to advance that race's influence and quality of life at the unavoidable expense of other races? It's not just a slogan; it's a call for redistribution. This call affects every race.

At their best, these calls can form movements which advocate for certain groups or minorities, such as the Civil Rights movement, which was unabashed in leveling accusations of inequality and injustice for blacks, not whites. The very nature of "Blacklivesmatters" begs the question, "Why must that be said? Don't all lives matter?" Thus, by its nature, it suggests inequality. It implies a call to action on the behalf of a single race.

It isn't important if that is necessarily correct or not. It's part of the dialogue I framed leading to the logical conclusion. It explains why the #ALM people probed #BLM on that matter, and #BLM responded with step #3.

And yet here you are desperately avoiding the argument. Now respond to thesis of post #33 in its entirety. It's time to put up or shut up.

I see you're going to keep squirming rather than answer my simple and repeated request for your personal definition of racism. I'll switch questions then: Do you believe there is any power imbalance between races at all?

 

[Bald1]

That's actually completely disingenuous, though. It's not like people were going around saying "all lives matter!" and then black people started yelling that black lives matter more. Black people started saying their lives matter and white people somehow took offense to that, and coined this disingenuous phrase as a "sit down and shut up" rebuttal to their assertion that black lives matter.

"Of course black lives matter. Duh. Nobody is disputing that statement." Great. Then why argue with them? Why contend with anything at all? Why not say "Of course! Yes. How can we help?"

Now I'm being disingenuous by saying that all lives matter? Lol. Good stuff.

I'll tell you what's disingenuous. The implication that (for some reason) black lives do not matter. It's also divisive and argumentative.

Maybe I'm just splitting hairs from my perspective, but when I think all lives matter that statement includes the lives of black people. The same can't be said of BLM and other races.

Anyways, back to work i go.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Give her money so she canbuy a plane ticket adn get the fuck out to Liberia, for example...

As an American it's not only her right to stand up and say what she feels is fucked up about society, it's her duty.

Having said that, I disagree with her and BLM.

 

[Forkfoot]

Now respond to thesis of post #33 in its entirety. It's time to put up or shut up.

I'm on mobile so I can't see your post numbers. If it's the long one with the list that one breaks down in the beginning at your weird personal definition of racism, which you don't want to address.

 

[Madmick]

I see you're going to keep squirming rather than answer my simple and repeated request for your personal definition of racism. I'll switch questions then: Do you believe there is any power imbalance between races at all?

Ooh, look, you echoed "squirming" back at me. I bet everyone reading this is confused who is in the driver's seat.

This argument isn't a debate of semantics. It's not about my personal definition of racism. This is about the shared definition of racism- such as you would find in a dictionary. This is absolutely not about my personal opinion of the "power balance" between the races. Try to focus. This is about the allegation that #ALM is "racist" by the founder of #BLM.


These attempts to avoid the crux of post #33 are just freaking hilarious, and transparent (not only to me).

 

[Forkfoot]

Now I'm being disingenuous by saying that all lives matter? Lol. Good stuff.

I'll tell you what's disingenuous. The implication that (for some reason) black lives do not matter. It's also divisive and argumentative.

Maybe I'm just splitting hairs from my perspective, but when I think all lives matter that statement includes the lives of black people. The same can't be said of BLM and other races.

Anyways, back to work i go.

I'm not sure how to respond to this other than to repeat everything I already said. Yes it's racist, yes you're being disingenuous, no it's not an innocuous thing to say.

 

[Tamriel Terror]

i honestly don't care what people protest (its their right to do so whether i agree with it or not). Of course i don't agree with the BLM movement, especially after hearing how illogical some of the members appear to be. I get it, im evil because im a white male and i suppress all minorities with my white privilege.

 

[Forkfoot]

This argument isn't about my personal definition of racism. This is about the shared definition of racism- such as you would find in a dictionary.

Go on then. Quote it and use it to substantiate your position.

 

[Madmick]

Go on then. Quote it and use it to substantiate your position.

I'm not your monkey, and I've entertained your avoidance for half a dozen posts. If you feel this definition is relevant to a rebuttal, then you are free to incorporate it. I will re-post that argument in its entirety:

1. #blacklivesmatter presented itself as a movement with an agenda that specifically sought to advance the cause of a single race; it carries the priority of this mission statement in the name itself.
   
2. Non-blacks who took umbrage at that pointed out that this, was in itself, by definition a racist movement in that it advocated this priority at the expense of other lives (some couched this in the reality that blacks aren't being murdered at a higher incidence per capita relative to their crime/confrontation rates, armed or unarmed, but that isn't necessarily required to argue the principle).
   
3. The #BLM advocates said, "No, that's not right! It's only saying that blacks lives should matter, not that people of other races shouldn't."
   
4. So the critics made the highly valid argument, "Well, then it should be #ALM."
5. #BLM responded with, "It is! This is about everyone who gets shot by police, not just black people."
   
6. So the critics repeated the highly valid argument, "Well, then it should be #ALM."
7. Furthermore, it does this by employing the same logic towards its end that #BLM supporters only used to defend their movement once grilled on its apparent peculiar devotion to the agenda of a single race for an intensifying problem suffered by citizenry of all races; it doesn't argue that black lives don't matter, but rather, to the contrary, it goes even further than #BLM by explicitly including blacks under its banner. It doesn't imply anything negative by the substance of its virtue.
8. #BLM had no valid response. So we got this instead. Now the allegation is that #ALM is "racist" because it was meant to "counteract" #BLM. Really? If that's the case, and #BLM was really about everyone, then this reactionary movement by definition cannot be racist: merely pro-cop, or anti-protester, or what have you.