Alara317 said:
KLAMarine said:

Right! We arrest these arsonists so that they don't set any more fires in the future!

I was just thinking a tweak to the name would cut down on the number of times you have to clarify the meaning of the name.

Oh cut it out, you and I both know that's not at all what you were trying to say. Once again, it's just a way to take the wind out of the sails of a movement you fundamentally misunderstand or can't be bothered to learn. It's not about the power of the slogan, it's about your unwillingness to learn. 

No, that IS what I was trying to say.

Believe me: I happen to be the ultimate authority on what I was trying to say after all. No one knows me better than me.

SpokenTruth said:
KLAMarine said:

Well yeah, I suggested a name change to hopefully cut down on the number of times the name's meaning needs to be clarified. This way, we can get down to discussing the more important matter of reform rather than wasting time and energy discussing semantics...

How is this me making it about me?

Except here you are saying, "All Lives Matter."  You already know the purpose behind the slogan and you still have no interest in "discussing the more important matter of reform" because here you are literally, "wasting time and energy discussing semantics."

And it's definitely about you. Because instead of directly addressing the message and "discussing the more important matter of reform" you want to make this about a phrase that's more palatable for you to swallow.

And you didn't even answer my question so I'll post it again. And do you honestly think that it would have made a damn bit of difference if the movement was called 'black lives matter also'?

I have plenty interest in getting to the reform part but BLM is still named BLM, not BLaM. As a result, more people in general waste time discussing the semantics rather than focusing on the reform part.

"And do you honestly think that it would have made a damn bit of difference if the movement was called 'black lives matter also'?"

A good question but I'm afraid we have no concrete answer. It's not like we can run a simulation of real life, rewind the clock, and rename the movement BLaM to observe changes. We can certainly speculate and I think a renaming would help cut down on discussion of the name.



Around the Network
KLAMarine said:
SpokenTruth said:

Except here you are saying, "All Lives Matter."  You already know the purpose behind the slogan and you still have no interest in "discussing the more important matter of reform" because here you are literally, "wasting time and energy discussing semantics."

And it's definitely about you. Because instead of directly addressing the message and "discussing the more important matter of reform" you want to make this about a phrase that's more palatable for you to swallow.

And you didn't even answer my question so I'll post it again. And do you honestly think that it would have made a damn bit of difference if the movement was called 'black lives matter also'?

I have plenty interest in getting to the reform part but BLM is still named BLM, not BLaM. As a result, more people in general waste time discussing the semantics rather than focusing on the reform part.

"And do you honestly think that it would have made a damn bit of difference if the movement was called 'black lives matter also'?"

A good question but I'm afraid we have no concrete answer. It's not like we can run a simulation of real life, rewind the clock, and rename the movement BLaM to observe changes. We can certainly speculate and I think a renaming would help cut down on discussion of the name.

We just had a simulation because you're still hung up on it even when you do know the intent behind the name.

It wouldn't change a damn thing.  You know, I know it.  Like I said, they'd just counter-protest with "white lives also matter".

Because this semantics messaging thing is a red herring.  It's a scapegoat.  A cop out.  It's an excuse to gripe about exclusion so they don't have to face the reality of the situation and actually discuss reforms and change.  You know it, I know it. 


This is the scenario you are expecting us to believe:

BLM: Our movement is called Black Lives Matter and it's purpose is to address police brutality and social injustice.
Response: All Lives Matter. 

BLaM: Our movement is called Black Lives also Matter and it's purpose is to address police brutality and social injustice. 
Response: Oh, wow.  Let's discuss these important issues of police brutality and social injustice.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

KLAMarine said:
Alara317 said:

Oh cut it out, you and I both know that's not at all what you were trying to say. Once again, it's just a way to take the wind out of the sails of a movement you fundamentally misunderstand or can't be bothered to learn. It's not about the power of the slogan, it's about your unwillingness to learn. 

No, that IS what I was trying to say.

Believe me: I happen to be the ultimate authority on what I was trying to say after all. No one knows me better than me.

SpokenTruth said:

Except here you are saying, "All Lives Matter."  You already know the purpose behind the slogan and you still have no interest in "discussing the more important matter of reform" because here you are literally, "wasting time and energy discussing semantics."

And it's definitely about you. Because instead of directly addressing the message and "discussing the more important matter of reform" you want to make this about a phrase that's more palatable for you to swallow.

And you didn't even answer my question so I'll post it again. And do you honestly think that it would have made a damn bit of difference if the movement was called 'black lives matter also'?

I have plenty interest in getting to the reform part but BLM is still named BLM, not BLaM. As a result, more people in general waste time discussing the semantics rather than focusing on the reform part.

"And do you honestly think that it would have made a damn bit of difference if the movement was called 'black lives matter also'?"

A good question but I'm afraid we have no concrete answer. It's not like we can run a simulation of real life, rewind the clock, and rename the movement BLaM to observe changes. We can certainly speculate and I think a renaming would help cut down on discussion of the name.

When it comes to the concept of simulations, they are never seen as "the truth". They are simply tools, built on many assumptions themselves, which inform decision-makers on what may happen in a given scenario. No simulation is a perfect reflection of reality (maybe quantum simulations, but let's not open that can of worms). Why not classify imagination as a simulation/tool, in which you can play around with and assess ideas? Realistically, it is the only (i.e. best) tool we have to explore these types of decision spaces, otherwise we have nothing at all and we can't move beyond square one.

Further to SpokenTruth's point, I feel like this idea has been raised in discussions before ...

For simplicity I'll just copy/paste the contents from that previous post, here:

Your demonstrated strategy for political discourse on this forum lacks imagination in your pursuit to learn, in that you choose to not exercise your imagination. You seem too scared to think/talk about situations that's not got some perfectly framed and uncut video-footage associated with it, which limits your ability to be aware of what can/cannot be likely. Unfortunately we dont have that luxury in the real-world and without using your imagination, it's gonna be hard to properly exercise empathy and connect with those on the other side to work on a solution that gets collective buy-in ... some might also call this a functioning democracy ;)



KLAMarine said:
Jumpin said:
Apparently, to Trumporcs when the phrase "black lives matter" is spoken, what they hear is "white lives don't matter"
Why? It's no mystery, it's because they're stupid.

All Lives Matter.

Yep, that's the phrase, and the people who chant it at counter-protests are too damn stupid to see their own absurdity.

Counter protesting with "ALL LIVES MATTER" is as stupid as counter protesting "Free Tibet" with "FREE ALL PEOPLE" or countering "Save the Rain Forest" with "SAVE ALL TREES!"  it's because instead of hearing "Black lives matter" they hear "White lives don't matter" -- what is clear is these are NOT bright people =P



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

coolbeans said:
sundin13 said:

First, I'll say that I don't agree with Seth's take on the matter. I don't think his perspective is helpful, though I do understand where he is coming from.

That said, I also don't really think that the fact a body was found is particularly relevant. What the rioting was, was largely a reaction to a failure of the system to remedy its abuses. And it wasn't a reaction based around logic. How could it be? We like to talk about how our government works as if it responds to the reasoned will of the people, but there have been people expressing their frustrations logically for decades. When our systems fail to act to remedy their abuses, and we are shown that being logical and calm doesn't provoke change, that frustration will inevitably boil over. There is no weighing of pros and cons necessary, because the riots were not a result of such an analysis. They are the result of unanswered cries for justice spilling over.

To quote Martin Luther King Jr:

"[A] riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention."

The damage that was done is terrible, but I don't think that weakens any of the voices demanding change within these broken systems. Riots are a reflection of a system that has failed. The damage that was done doesn't weaken these voices, they only add to the urgency of calls for change.

I'll give credit in one respect: at least the initial responses continued to climb up in complexity (until they didn't).  Anyways...

Although I find Dr. King's assessment incisive on its own, 'cry of the unheard' during the Minneapolis riots is just a linguistic trick turned battering ram to paper over immoral actions.

My first issue would be the context between then and now.  We're talking about a quote trying to understand riots during The Civil Rights Era.  The motivations of those involved were infinitely more clear and pinned their response on discriminatory abuses that was explicitly allowed by law.  That codified exploitation has been removed.  And I'd argue the 60's rioters MLK references were more logical in methodology.  Their aim was more deliberately honed in clashes against police.  While there tends to be property fallout in a riot, I'd say it pales in comparison to marching through downtown Minneapolis with deliberate intention to complete smash 'n grabs or raze a local business to the ground, especially when you've been successfully maintaining peaceful protests beforehand.  Not to mention the violent acts against civilians (as I've already touched on).

Another problem comes back to this: where's the "unheard" in all of this?  George Floyd was one of the most popular news developments across the globe.  It seemed like most agreed this was a wrongful death.  Even before fires started, all four officers were fired outright with investigations already underway for their actions.  Sure, the follow-through on charges didn't happen that same day.  It never does.  Usually you expect them to be formally charged a few months down the line (a reform that's worth pursuing).

[That's all I can muster before logging off.]

I will acknowledge that a lot of progress has been made since the '60's, but at the same time, I believe we should also acknowledge how much work we have left to do. We have taken a lot of steps towards justice, however we haven't gotten there as of yet, and the interesting thing about justice is that every step leading up to it is still injustice. It doesn't really matter how much injustice is behind us, as the mere fact of this progress does little to help those who are suffering under our current, broken system. These systems are still mired in injustice, so these calls for reform are just as valid today as they have been for the last several hundred years. The fact that clear racism codified in law has been removed simply provides a mask, to allow people to justify their blindness to these flaws.

That said, I don't believe I agree with you assessment of the 60s riots. Your wording is a bit muddy, so I could be misunderstanding you, but the riots of the 60s were significantly more violent than what we have been seeing over the past several months. If your assertion is that what we are seeing now is worse than those riots, I believe you are sorely mistaken (however, again, I could be misunderstanding you as your wording wasn't entirely clear).

Additionally, I think you and I have severely different understandings of what it means to be unheard. If the people are speaking out against injustices in our criminal justice system for decades and the necessary changes aren't made, I consider that being unheard. It doesn't matter if it makes international news. The fact that it can make international news and still we don't see change says to me that those in power simply aren't listening. And while I am glad that the individuals involved in this incident were arrested, these protests don't start and end with George Floyd, and arresting a few officers neither rights this wrong, nor acts to ensure that this same thing won't happen again. We need systemic, proactive change, not a couple of band-aids.

Immersiveunreality said:
sundin13 said:

That is again fighting the symptom, not the cause. We will continue to wind up in these situations until we actually fix the broken systems which led to these protests. Plus, as a tiny little bonus, we will also not have a broken criminal justice system, which is good I guess.

What do you do when a mental ill person that had years of abuse shoots down his whole class at school?

There are two things here that needs to be dealt with,and that's the same with certain peoples behaviour in the riots like we also hold the police accountable for pannicking or losing control and beating up innocents.

The cause is the one that draws the most attention but the symptoms already developed from it wont go away if you take away the cause because they already happened and those people need to be also held accountable.

In my opinion no one has the right to get a free pass on violence against innocents.

Don't get me wrong, I am not speaking out against arrests. I agree with you that sometimes the symptom needs to be treated alongside the cause. If individuals are arrested for major crimes such as assault or arson, I won't take issue issue with that. However, we should all understand that these arrests will do little to prevent the same thing from happening again (and again (and again)). KLA is acting like all we need to do is throw a few arsonists in prison and crime will be solved, but both logic and the US crime rate beg to differ. That isn't how this works. Again, if you wish to stop this from happening again in the future, you need to rectify the cause.



Around the Network
Jumpin said:
KLAMarine said:

All Lives Matter.

Yep, that's the phrase, and the people who chant it at counter-protests are too damn stupid to see their own absurdity.

Counter protesting with "ALL LIVES MATTER" is as stupid as counter protesting "Free Tibet" with "FREE ALL PEOPLE" or countering "Save the Rain Forest" with "SAVE ALL TREES!"  it's because instead of hearing "Black lives matter" they hear "White lives don't matter" -- what is clear is these are NOT bright people =P

"I have breast cancer" ALL CANCERS MATTER

"My house is on fire" ALL HOUSES MATTER

"My son is disables" ALL KIDS MATTER

"I broke my arm" ALL BONES MATTER

all of those statements are true, but they're not what needs attention right now.



EnricoPallazzo said:

As a colored person myself (I hate this word) I think the same. Actually I am against the movement the way it is today, too much focused on marxist revolution and violence, which are things that unfortunately walk side by side usually. But I do really hope they can bring some improvement to the black community in US in the end. And yes... I'm more worried about things that happen in the underworld at the moment. Like, I'm really scared.

Yea, it's annoying whenever i have to refer to myself as POC, B&W or whatever.

The first time i didn't think much of BLM. That it was a slogan, a banner people loosely flock to. This perception has changed and with all the information i gathered, my viewpoint of the situation in the US has become taken over by an eerie sensation. To be honest, i don't have any hope that change will come. Not that i had any kind expectations and an elaborate opinion on that matter. Now i feel hammer struck, not sure what to make of it.

What did you associate with (under)world?



Hunting Season is done...

SpokenTruth said:
KLAMarine said:

I have plenty interest in getting to the reform part but BLM is still named BLM, not BLaM. As a result, more people in general waste time discussing the semantics rather than focusing on the reform part.

"And do you honestly think that it would have made a damn bit of difference if the movement was called 'black lives matter also'?"

A good question but I'm afraid we have no concrete answer. It's not like we can run a simulation of real life, rewind the clock, and rename the movement BLaM to observe changes. We can certainly speculate and I think a renaming would help cut down on discussion of the name.

We just had a simulation because you're still hung up on it even when you do know the intent behind the name.

It wouldn't change a damn thing.  You know, I know it.  Like I said, they'd just counter-protest with "white lives also matter".

Because this semantics messaging thing is a red herring.  It's a scapegoat.  A cop out.  It's an excuse to gripe about exclusion so they don't have to face the reality of the situation and actually discuss reforms and change.  You know it, I know it. 


This is the scenario you are expecting us to believe:

BLM: Our movement is called Black Lives Matter and it's purpose is to address police brutality and social injustice.
Response: All Lives Matter. 

BLaM: Our movement is called Black Lives also Matter and it's purpose is to address police brutality and social injustice. 
Response: Oh, wow.  Let's discuss these important issues of police brutality and social injustice.

"You know it, I know it."

>Simply asserting something is so doesn't make it so.

"Because this semantics messaging thing is a red herring.  It's a scapegoat.  A cop out.  It's an excuse to gripe about exclusion so they don't have to face the reality of the situation and actually discuss reforms and change."

>And it's probably going to continue to be used as a red herring/scapegoat/cop out/excuse so long as the name stays as is.

Or we could rename to BLaM and see if that helps mitigate the semantics issue. We won't truly know until we try.

Hopefully it'll help Runa out who's sick of having to repeat himself.

Runa216:

KLAMarine said:
Runa216 said:

yep! Yes they do. Which is why BLM needs to be heard and continued...because right now it seems like law enforcement and American politics are acting like Black Lives don't matter. If all lives matter, then Black Lives also matter, but since they seem to not matter in the eyes of too many, they need to be given the appropriate attention and respect. 

It's simple. Why don't you get it? BLM doesn't mean ONLY black lives matter, or that they matter more, or that white lives don't matter, it's that Black Lives DO matter, and modern political climates seem to indicate the opposite. 

Do you get sick of having to make this point?

oh yeah, I do. I hate the fact that I have to keep saying this to people who don't get it. 

TK-Karma said:
KLAMarine said:

No, that IS what I was trying to say.

Believe me: I happen to be the ultimate authority on what I was trying to say after all. No one knows me better than me.

I have plenty interest in getting to the reform part but BLM is still named BLM, not BLaM. As a result, more people in general waste time discussing the semantics rather than focusing on the reform part.

"And do you honestly think that it would have made a damn bit of difference if the movement was called 'black lives matter also'?"

A good question but I'm afraid we have no concrete answer. It's not like we can run a simulation of real life, rewind the clock, and rename the movement BLaM to observe changes. We can certainly speculate and I think a renaming would help cut down on discussion of the name.

When it comes to the concept of simulations, they are never seen as "the truth". They are simply tools, built on many assumptions themselves, which inform decision-makers on what may happen in a given scenario. No simulation is a perfect reflection of reality (maybe quantum simulations, but let's not open that can of worms). Why not classify imagination as a simulation/tool, in which you can play around with and assess ideas? Realistically, it is the only (i.e. best) tool we have to explore these types of decision spaces, otherwise we have nothing at all and we can't move beyond square one.

Further to SpokenTruth's point, I feel like this idea has been raised in discussions before ...

For simplicity I'll just copy/paste the contents from that previous post, here:

Your demonstrated strategy for political discourse on this forum lacks imagination in your pursuit to learn, in that you choose to not exercise your imagination. You seem too scared to think/talk about situations that's not got some perfectly framed and uncut video-footage associated with it, which limits your ability to be aware of what can/cannot be likely. Unfortunately we dont have that luxury in the real-world and without using your imagination, it's gonna be hard to properly exercise empathy and connect with those on the other side to work on a solution that gets collective buy-in ... some might also call this a functioning democracy ;)

"Why not classify imagination as a simulation/tool, in which you can play around with and assess ideas?"

>One certainly can use imagination to simulate but how does one confirm outcomes?

Jumpin said:
KLAMarine said:

All Lives Matter.

Yep, that's the phrase, and the people who chant it at counter-protests are too damn stupid to see their own absurdity.

Counter protesting with "ALL LIVES MATTER" is as stupid as counter protesting "Free Tibet" with "FREE ALL PEOPLE" or countering "Save the Rain Forest" with "SAVE ALL TREES!"  it's because instead of hearing "Black lives matter" they hear "White lives don't matter" -- what is clear is these are NOT bright people =P

I think it might be because BLM makes little to no mention of white victims of police brutality. They're as much victims as anyone.

Alara317 said:
Jumpin said:

Yep, that's the phrase, and the people who chant it at counter-protests are too damn stupid to see their own absurdity.

Counter protesting with "ALL LIVES MATTER" is as stupid as counter protesting "Free Tibet" with "FREE ALL PEOPLE" or countering "Save the Rain Forest" with "SAVE ALL TREES!"  it's because instead of hearing "Black lives matter" they hear "White lives don't matter" -- what is clear is these are NOT bright people =P

"I have breast cancer" ALL CANCERS MATTER

"My house is on fire" ALL HOUSES MATTER

"My son is disables" ALL KIDS MATTER

"I broke my arm" ALL BONES MATTER

all of those statements are true, but they're not what needs attention right now.

Blacks aren't the only ones being killed by police.

All Lives Matter covers all lives, not just black lives.



I love that the idea that a person having the right to not get murdered or killed by neglect is somehow political extremism. Apparently the freedom to live is not within the spectrum of what the US calls "freedom" and has to be politically enforced first.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

KLAMarine said:
SpokenTruth said:

We just had a simulation because you're still hung up on it even when you do know the intent behind the name.

It wouldn't change a damn thing.  You know, I know it.  Like I said, they'd just counter-protest with "white lives also matter".

Because this semantics messaging thing is a red herring.  It's a scapegoat.  A cop out.  It's an excuse to gripe about exclusion so they don't have to face the reality of the situation and actually discuss reforms and change.  You know it, I know it. 


This is the scenario you are expecting us to believe:

BLM: Our movement is called Black Lives Matter and it's purpose is to address police brutality and social injustice.
Response: All Lives Matter. 

BLaM: Our movement is called Black Lives also Matter and it's purpose is to address police brutality and social injustice. 
Response: Oh, wow.  Let's discuss these important issues of police brutality and social injustice.

"You know it, I know it."

>Simply asserting something is so doesn't make it so.

"Because this semantics messaging thing is a red herring.  It's a scapegoat.  A cop out.  It's an excuse to gripe about exclusion so they don't have to face the reality of the situation and actually discuss reforms and change."

>And it's probably going to continue to be used as a red herring/scapegoat/cop out/excuse so long as the name stays as is.

Or we could rename to BLaM and see if that helps mitigate the semantics issue. We won't truly know until we try.

Hopefully it'll help Runa out who's sick of having to repeat himself.

Runa216:

KLAMarine said:

Do you get sick of having to make this point?

oh yeah, I do. I hate the fact that I have to keep saying this to people who don't get it. 

TK-Karma said:

When it comes to the concept of simulations, they are never seen as "the truth". They are simply tools, built on many assumptions themselves, which inform decision-makers on what may happen in a given scenario. No simulation is a perfect reflection of reality (maybe quantum simulations, but let's not open that can of worms). Why not classify imagination as a simulation/tool, in which you can play around with and assess ideas? Realistically, it is the only (i.e. best) tool we have to explore these types of decision spaces, otherwise we have nothing at all and we can't move beyond square one.

Further to SpokenTruth's point, I feel like this idea has been raised in discussions before ...

For simplicity I'll just copy/paste the contents from that previous post, here:

Your demonstrated strategy for political discourse on this forum lacks imagination in your pursuit to learn, in that you choose to not exercise your imagination. You seem too scared to think/talk about situations that's not got some perfectly framed and uncut video-footage associated with it, which limits your ability to be aware of what can/cannot be likely. Unfortunately we dont have that luxury in the real-world and without using your imagination, it's gonna be hard to properly exercise empathy and connect with those on the other side to work on a solution that gets collective buy-in ... some might also call this a functioning democracy ;)

"Why not classify imagination as a simulation/tool, in which you can play around with and assess ideas?"

>One certainly can use imagination to simulate but how does one confirm outcomes?

Jumpin said:

Yep, that's the phrase, and the people who chant it at counter-protests are too damn stupid to see their own absurdity.

Counter protesting with "ALL LIVES MATTER" is as stupid as counter protesting "Free Tibet" with "FREE ALL PEOPLE" or countering "Save the Rain Forest" with "SAVE ALL TREES!"  it's because instead of hearing "Black lives matter" they hear "White lives don't matter" -- what is clear is these are NOT bright people =P

I think it might be because BLM makes little to no mention of white victims of police brutality. They're as much victims as anyone.

Alara317 said:

"I have breast cancer" ALL CANCERS MATTER

"My house is on fire" ALL HOUSES MATTER

"My son is disables" ALL KIDS MATTER

"I broke my arm" ALL BONES MATTER

all of those statements are true, but they're not what needs attention right now.

Blacks aren't the only ones being killed by police.

All Lives Matter covers all lives, not just black lives.

Jesus christ how culturally ignorant are you? Yes, we know it isn't JUST black people being killed, but the reality is that they are being targetted with increased rates and there are far more examples of black (men in particular) people being killed by cops despite them being a minority in the US. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT. IT's not saying ONLY black lives matter or ONLY black lives are being affected, but that we live in a world where it seems culturally accepted to treat black people with less respect. Why are you being so aggressively ignorant on this issue? Why are you being so stubborn in your right to be disingenuous? what do you gain by trying to devalue the very real strife affecting millions of people in your country? 

THIS is why BLM as a movement exists. People like you are the reason it needs to be made clear now more than ever that systemic racism is a very real and very pervasive thing. You are a glowing example of how racism persists in this world. You might not be burning crosses or wearing a ghost robe, but you're enabling it by pretending racism doesn't exist or otherwise refusing to accept its pervasive influence.