This post is locked. You won't be able to comment.

1861
1862

[Off-Site] Black Lives Matter (i.imgur.com)

sgtjayp1✓ が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]vuw957 51ポイント52ポイント  (69子コメント)

Maybe because they're also 3 times more likely to commit violent crime, and consequently end up in trouble with the police. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/43tabledatadecoverviewpdf

According to this post, Asians were half as likely to get shot as Whites. Does that mean Asian Lives Matter Less?

[–]BassmanBiff 98ポイント99ポイント  (40子コメント)

I really wish we'd get rid of this disingenuous argument that Black Lives Matter = Black Lives Matter More Than Everyone Else.

[–]acdcfreak 30ポイント31ポイント  (39子コメント)

the proper argument is that BLM implies black lives don't already matter, which is a big stretch.

[–]BassmanBiff 43ポイント44ポイント  (30子コメント)

It's not much of a stretch when we look at the stats and the general lack of consequences for police violence, especially against black people. It's clear that there are circumstances in which black lives don't seem to matter like they should.

The fact that this sentiment is usually met with backlash instead of simple agreement kind of demonstrates the problem. The phrase "black lives matter" shouldn't be any more controversial than "save the rainforest" or "end cancer", yet people often need to find something disagreeable about it.

[–]ifthenloop 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's usually not disagreeing with the name, rather, it's disagreeing with the arguments used to keep the movement going.

I mean, I could start a "White Lives Matter" movement, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that; however, everyone would call me an idiot because I couldn't come up with any good reasons for why I started it/why it's necessary.

[–]acdcfreak -4ポイント-3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I find it regressive.

[–]scottevil1101✓ -4ポイント-3ポイント  (17子コメント)

The reason there's contention is that it's specifying a particular group of people that we're supposed to focus on. A more apt analogy would be if there were people saying "End cancer in men" or "End cancer for white people".

[–]BassmanBiff 15ポイント16ポイント  (16子コメント)

Look at why they're specifying a particular group. "End cancer in men" gives men priority for no reason. "Black lives matter" addresses a problem that disproportionately affects black people. It's disingenuous to pretend like that isn't obvious. I like redwood forests, should I be upset when people say "save the rainforest?" No, because rainforests are threatened right now.

Also, even with "end cancer in men", why not just say "OK"? "Black lives matter" is even the mildest way you could possibly put it. It's not "elevate black people", it's not even "help black people", it's literally just suggesting that black lives are worth considering, and we still object for some reason.

[–]scottevil1101✓ 4ポイント5ポイント  (8子コメント)

The objection is because it comes with the very strong implication that we don't care already.

[–]BassmanBiff 8ポイント9ポイント  (4子コメント)

That's actually their point. Our actions, as a whole, do indicate that we don't care even if we say we do. For example, look at how news stories tend to portray black victims of police violence, among other things.

[–]TriXandApple 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

People OBVIOUSLY don't care, you're commenting on a statistic that says they're 4 times more likely to get shot.

[–]scottevil1101✓ -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

There are a number of logical flaws in your statement:

Firstly, unless "people" are somehow involved in the shooting, the statistic has no bearing on how much the vast, vast majority of us "care."

Secondly, your use of the word "likely" is inappropriate. It is not random chance whether someone is shot by the police.

[–]TriXandApple 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Uh, in a macro sense it completely is. If you take the entire group of black people, with the context they're in, and the same for a white person, and you take one from each, the white person will be 4 times as likely.

Firstly, unless "people" are somehow involved in the shooting, the statistic has no bearing on how much the vast, vast majority of us "care."

What does that even mean? "People" youre talking about is society.

[–]TibsChris1✓ 3ポイント4ポイント  (6子コメント)

"Black lives matter," the phrase, is controversial because it's poorly conceived.

"Save the rainforest." This implies that the rainforest needs saving.

"End cancer." This implies that cancer is something that needs to be stopped as soon as possible.

"Black lives matter." This is a pretty vague statement. You can go one of two ways with this: either they don't currently matter, which is false at worse and exaggeration at best; or that they do matter, so why are you bringing this up out of nowhere, because all lives matter? Wait, why are you now calling me a racist because I was confused by your shitty wording?

The phrase would be more clear as, "end disproportionate police violence against blacks." What's that, it doesn't sound as good and is harder to make into a slogan? I completely agree, so I guess you just have to be patient and tolerant of the responses you're inevitably going to get when people are confused by the phrase.

But no. It's much more satisfying to get loud and self-righteous and preachy than it is to be tolerant and patient, which is why I constantly see BLM supporters bringing up "all lives matter" even when nobody else did just to knock it down with a shitty mic-drop analogy.

[–]BassmanBiff 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

There is no way that the phrase "black lives matter" is actually unclear to you. To spell it out, the point is that, as a society, our actions seem to indicate that black lives do not matter. Thus "hey, black lives matter, let's pay attention". This is seriously basic reading comprehension and I don't believe you don't understand that.

How can you not see the hypocrisy when you talk about self-righteousness and a lack of tolerance and patience, while you pretend that you can't understand three very common words just to find something to pick on in how people are asking not to be killed? Why is the phrasing so offensive to you that you have to pick it apart instead of just saying "Yep, black lives sure do matter!"

If I said "rainforests matter" in response to a story about cutting down rainforests, would you really turn around and tell me that I'm being self-righteous, loud, and preachy because I didn't phrase it as "cease destroying our complex ecosystems for short-term economic gain?"

I'm sorry, I obviously am failing at the patience part right now. You're not stupid, but it's frustrating that so many people are bending over backwards, pretending to be dumb, just so they can find a reason that this phrase makes them uncomfortable. We're all a little bit racist, and it makes me uncomfortable, too! But please don't pretend that it's just too hard to understand what someone means when, in response to black people being killed, they say "black lives matter".

[–]TibsChris1✓ -1ポイント0ポイント  (4子コメント)

There is no way that the phrase "black lives matter" is actually unclear to you.

You're right. It's not unclear. It's just so absurdly broad that the only natural response is "but don't all lives matter?" But from what I've seen, people tend to get shitty when you do that.

as a society, our actions seem to indicate that black lives do not matter

Well that's clearly false, or else murdering or abusing a black person would always be unpunishable.

[nonsense about hypocrisy]

This is a whole lot of appeal to emotion just to misrepresent my arguments but essentially, when you say I'm hypocritically intolerant, you need to recognize the intolerance is specifically for people who would rather toss labels around than have a discussion. I'm intolerant of sophistry.

Why is the phrasing so offensive

Never said or implied offense to you

have to pick it apart instead of just saying "Yep, black lives sure do matter!"

Because when someone says something vague to me, I'd rather be skeptical and ask questions than just swallow it down without understanding? In other words, I'd rather not be a gullible idiot?

Rainforests nonsense

See, didn't I open by saying "save the rainforests" was sufficient because it implies they need saving? If you said "rainforests matter," then... I would still agree, because rainforests are an ecosystem, and are unique to other ecosystems. Black people are a demographic. Black lives matter as much as any other life, so to vaguely focus on them with just three out-of-context words is going to raise questions, such as: "don't all lives matter" whoops I've done it again...

Analogies don't work on BLM vs ALM. The burning house, the starving guy at dinner, the whales, the rainforest... they each have a flaw. These things are more complicated than that, and that necessitates discussion and not analogy.

I'm not pretending to be stupid. I'm skeptical and I'm playing devil's advocate on behalf of everyone who, like I, have first responded with "don't all lives matter?" only to be met not with a productive discussion, but with labels, shaming, mic-dropping, and insults. That style of argumentation is getting too much momentum and popularity nowadays. The ends do not justify the means.

And I haven't even talked about how "all lives matter" refers to the fact that police violence is too high across the board, and how it's not mutually exclusive with BLM. But people don't want to hear that. What I'm forced to conclude after all I've seen is that people—at least the people who shout the loudest—seem to be more infatuated with the idea of the movement than with its goals.

[–]BassmanBiff 7ポイント8ポイント  (3子コメント)

Have an ounce of self-reflection here, seriously - you would not be having any reaction like this if someone said that basically anything else "matters" in response to a situation that seems to indicate that it doesn't, in fact, matter.

[–]willmaster123 3ポイント4ポイント  (6子コメント)

Honestly, do they?

A lot of people say that we have gotten past societal racism since civil rights in the 60s, but since then we have done some really horrific things.

We basically left them in ghettos where the quality of living was immensely low, leaving them to fester and rot in closed off segregated areas. We cut off a lot of the funding which kept those communities afloat in the 80s. We saw businesses leave, we saw schools turn to absolute shit, we saw drugs and gangs form after a time, and for all of this, we basically ignored the problem and did nothing. Black peoples problems felt forgotten about by the rest of America, and for an extremely good reason. Then when drugs in the ghettos got REALLY bad during the crack epidemic, we decided to use a militarized police force to imprison millions upon millions of them. After all of this, most black people still live in dense, urban ghettos, cut off from the rest of America, both financially and socially.

ANY race or culture that would go through this would have a high crime rate. It is not a mystery why black people commit more crimes than white people, even when both races are at the same income level. If you knew that all of these horrible things had happened to your people because of their skin color, would you still want to be a civilized part of a society which has thrown your people into the gutter? In reality, black peoples violent crime rates have nothing to do with their skin color. Black people from birth are not inherently more prone to violent crime at all. But at the same time, it has everything to do with skin color.

[–]acdcfreak -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

in short man that's not true at all in terms of government solutions, they "did" a lot. Lots of welfare and lots of affirmative action. Those things finance people in the short term but in the long term create all the negative cycles you're referring to.

There need to be better oppertunities for young blacks during development and real oppertunities for adult blacks, not giving them jobs and cash on the basis that they are too incompetent to earn more themselves.

[–]willmaster123 4ポイント5ポイント  (4子コメント)

Welfare and food stamps were cut down heavily in the 80s and 90s up until i think two years ago when we cut food stamps again. Affirmative action is still around, but it doesn't help much when the first 12 years of a black kids education is horrifically bad.

What you consider 'doing a lot' really was a VERY small amount of our budget. It cost us practically nothing for welfare and food stamps, and STILL we continued to constantly cut them throughout the decades. Combine that with rising rents in most black communities because of gentrification, and you have a disaster in many cities.

[–]acdcfreak 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

but what I'm saying is the solution is not free stuff.

if you're suggesting that doubling food stamps is the cure to the problem, or investing more money in education, you're just repeating what every liberal/progressive voter has said for decades, only as the situation got worse.

[–]willmaster123 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

I don't necessarily know what the solution is. I'm not saying food stamps and welfare are the only solutions, but the fact that we CUT them in the first place is kind of horrible.

Food stamps and welfare are not going to increase wealth in an area, however they do make it so the poor can survive without being desperate. When you cut those things off, as we have time and time again, it simply shows that America does not care, even for something that takes up an impossibly small amount of our budget. That mentality is part of what makes people go to crime.

However we should be investing money in education. I went to an inner city school in east brooklyn that was mostly black kids, and the school was completely underfunded and horrible. There weren't enough desks in classrooms, so students had to sit on the floor. We had to combine two or three classes just to watch a TV. Teachers were horrible and inattentive, even with a class that was well behaved. Things have changed DRASTICALLY since I went there... but there has also been a huge influx of asian and white students to the school, prompting people to care more about the school. If that's not a clear cut example, I don't know what is.

[–]acdcfreak 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I don't think there's an issue with these people starving. Isn't obesity an issue among the poor in America???

It's obvious the government isn't the one who will fix the underlying issues for blacks.

There are lots of solutions that don't involve the government.

[–]willmaster123 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Never said starving, I said desperate. Not being able to pay rent, electricity, GOOD food (the reason the poor are so obese is because they eat horrible cheap food), buy things for their kids, pay for public transportation etc.

But I'm not only advocating for the government, its also the corporate world at fault here, as well as society in general. The biggest reason why ghettos exist is because of real estate companies excluding blacks from white neighborhoods and vice versa. Private sector jobs discriminate way, way more than public sector jobs in general as well.

[–]laserbot 21ポイント22ポイント  (19子コメント)

I realize that this isn't the sub for this, but this is incredibly disingenuous because you're misplacing causation. People don't commit crimes because they are black. Skin color has no material, intrinsic impact on behavior. The meaningful information that can be gleaned from crime statistics by skin color is that people of color are more likely to be in a position socioeconomically where this kind of crime occurs.

In fact, those crime statistics are the exact issue that BLM is talking about. If black people are committing violent crimes at 3x the rate of others, then something is wrong with the society and its treatment of people with differing levels of melanin. People who are born with the wrong color of skin are demonstrably (by your data) edged out of acceptable social behavior because of economics and systemic racism, and thus end up in criminal situations. That's a social issue that isn't caused by black people as a category, but by a class system that uses skin color as a determinant of social place.

Conversely, when talking about police, the data demonstrate that skin color does serve as a determinant for how much force will be used by the judicial system in both enforcement and sentencing. Skin color is not "the fault" of the individual, yet prejudices against skin color lead to different treatment in the justice system.

[–]witeowl 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Outstandingly well said. Thank you.

[–]Yawehg 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Christ, thank you for being in this thread. I felt like I was taking crazy pills.

[–]2uiop -3ポイント-2ポイント  (11子コメント)

Okay, so why do so many black men abandon their children? Why are there so many single parent households? How does racism account for all of that? Why were Asians able to work past it?

[–]sawser 6ポイント7ポイント  (8子コメント)

Doesn't have anything to do with tougher sentencing laws, stricter enforcement of drug laws, reduced funding of schools, and fewer public services to help new parents, certainly.

[–]2uiop -4ポイント-3ポイント  (7子コメント)

I'd want to see some studies where those causes correlate to race after extracting the disparity in incomes.

Education should be improved, but primarily at the lower levels. Technology is the answer, because if we can get the student to read and use technology, the tools of the internet can guide them from there - if they are motivated and intelligent.

I have this sick theory that the majority of people won't be very useful going forward (decades in the future), and redistribution of wealth might be the only way to keep them "occupied" as we move forward. But we must make use of our most intelligent minds so that the redistribution of wealth can continue in the developed nations.

[–]witeowl 6ポイント7ポイント  (6子コメント)

after extracting the disparity in incomes

But why on earth are you extracting the disparity in incomes when black people have long been prevented from the education and opportunity to equalize incomes? It's a cycle, and you can't pretend that income disparity is the cause when income disparity is also a result. You can't cut the soles of a runner's feet and then pretend that it's an equal race when he doesn't run as fast.

[–]2uiop -3ポイント-2ポイント  (5子コメント)

So then your argument would be that poor black people should get more breaks than poor people of other races?

Aren't we already doing that? Okay, so how much more do we need?

I totally agree that some kind of re-balancing must take place. But can we at least admit that the black communities themselves are a huge part of this problem?

People must be held accountable for their actions to some extent, just as a murderous racist cop must be held accountable. "But oh, the guy was racist because his parents were racist and he grew up in this racist area, so he really couldn't have done anything differently to avoid shooting that innocent black kid."

Imagine a world where the bullshit rolled both ways... Scary

[–]witeowl 5ポイント6ポイント  (4子コメント)

No, and I wonder how you got that from my comment. but we have to admit that the source of the issue is poverty and lack of opportunity as a result a long line of oppression. So rather than wagging our fingers at poor black people and saying, "It's your fault because you're black (and maybe a little because you're poor) and are becoming entangled in drugs, crime, and too-young parenthood," we should start providing supports and services to provide education, opportunity, and yes even basic nutrition.

I have never taught a school with so high a level of poverty that is present in, say, Chicago. But I have nonetheless seen the impact of empty bellies, parents who are too busy putting a roof over their children's heads to help with homework, parents who don't know how to help their children with school because their parents couldn't help them with school, children who are too obsessed with the currency of their neighborhood to worry about the long-term currency education can provide... And that's not even dealing with the disparity between school districts themselves. We cannot correct the child or young adult when we are failing the child in all those ways (and so many more). And the solution is relatively simple: reduce the poverty, provide supports for families, equalize the education system, and we will see that most instead of a few children in those neighborhoods will be educable.

Don't punish the young adult who has gone wayward due to a cycle of poverty and discrimination. Prevent such a young adult from even existing.

[–]2uiop -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

You're the one who is saying "It's your fault because you're black"... Not me. I'm saying it is their fault because they are poor, because after you account for income disparity all of the racism washes away.

We have to take steps to reduce income inequality on a broad scale. The race doesn't matter very much these days. Besides, the old racist people will die off within the next two decades anyways.

The problem is the wealth inequality / income inequality, not racism.

What is causing wealth inequality? Let's focus on that, and not on the Lexus SUV, Air Jordan shoes, chrome rims, and other ridiculous depreciating assets that these communities purchase rather than buying stock in blue chip companies like a boring white person or asian person. The culture is a huuuuuge part of this problem.

I had faith 7 years ago that Obama would make it "cool" to be smart. I had faith that young black people would see his example and start studying and doing things the right way. I hope the trends are improving, to be honest I have no idea if they are.

I would make this bold statement: racism exists in younger generations because younger generations are pissed off that people complain about racism. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Heck just read the comments on a typical reddit thread. The white kids aren't racist, but they sure do get pissed off when black people start complaining about racism. The white kids forget, however, how racist their grandparents were/are and how racist their parents probably were/might still be.

[–]witeowl 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

I have no idea who you're having a conversation with, but here it is in your own words:

But can we at least admit that the black communities themselves are a huge part of this problem?

So, um, no, you're not just saying that it's due to poverty. You're saying SO much more than that.

And nowhere did I say "It's your fault because you're black." Let me repeat what I said:

So rather than wagging our fingers at poor black people and saying, "It's your fault because you're black (and maybe a little because you're poor) and are becoming entangled in drugs, crime, and too-young parenthood," we should start providing supports and services to provide education, opportunity, and yes even basic nutrition.

But then you go on to cite ridiculous stereotypes and otherwise show that you don't at all understand the currency of culture and how it conflicts with, you know, actual currency and the behaviors to be able to make more currency. And then you even say that "the culture is a huge part of this problem" because they're not doing things that white or asian people do. (Golly, I wonder how many poor white or poor asian people are buying stock in blue chip companies...)

You're asking children, children to be able to look beyond their environment and invest in their futures by studying and "doing things the right way". Their brains are not developed enough to look that far into their future. We need to make their present work for them, not make them work for their future. It's simply not going to happen that way, and certainly not when they have mold in the classroom walls, too few parents who can or know how to help, no books, no safety, and in some areas now no water. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs makes it very clear that while we continue to fail the children in these communities, they will continue to fail your expectations.

Sigh. But you somehow think that I actually said, "It's your fault because you're black." So I honestly don't know what to say.

[–]witeowl 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

Here's some reading for you.

And ignoring the oversimplified and outright false accusation that "so many black men abandon their children", what else is wrong? You learn how to be a father from your father. And if your father didn't have the opportunity to learn from his father because they were property? Well, there's another difficulty, isn't there? And it's a difficulty that's not going to go away in one generation in the best of circumstances.

And why is it so far away from being "the best of circumstances"? Well, you could read Slavery by Another Name and The New Jim Crow to see how slavery actually lasted well past its abolishment and how the for-profit prison complex is preventing black people from simply "working past it". It's really such a complicated, horrible web... It's too much for me to try to discuss in one post.

But put simply: No other enslaved group, not the Irish, not the Japanese, not any other group of people has faced the same level of obstruction while attempting to rise up to equality. And if you think that these issues aren't part of the cause rather than the result of crime and drug use and poverty which results in black fathers being taken from their families... well, you're wrong.

[–]FiremanHandles -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

I like almost everything you said. Except for:

a class system that uses skin color as a determinant of social place.

I don't really follow this. When I think of a class system, I think of lower / middle / upper, or variations of those, which would be determined by wealth.

Edit: this is from another conversation about socioeconomic issues. You seem more versed in the subject than me and I was hoping you could poke some holes in my below ideas...

I would love to see statistics on 'dangerous places' and poverty. I've always thought the issue was an economic one and not a racial one. Hypothesis: The majority of criminally offending poor blacks live in high density, low income urban areas, while the majority criminally offending poor whites live in rural areas.

And you could extrapolate further from that idea: urban areas often neighbor richer areas. In a rural setting its more likely someone would know you, or you are deterred from committing a crime as you would more likely to be caught (less suspects) as there would be in a high density area.

[–]mmouchi 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

There was a loose class system based on race before the civil rights movement. Black people were nearly instantly second class citizens with lesser facilities and opportunities, and violence against them. Considering we are only two generations out from that time, it follows that the socio-economic issues of today still have roots in that previous system. Poverty is cyclical. While there are more African Americans breaking that cycle now than in 1960, there is still a substantial number trapped in bad neighborhoods or the worst school districts.

[–]witeowl 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hell, there's still that loose class system. Look at the resume and home applicant studies turn out: people with "ethnic" names receive fewer call backs (or are outright lied to about the place being rented) while people with traditionally white names are called back and/or welcomed more often.

[–]rxninja -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

both enforcement and sentencing

Enforcement, yes. Absolutely. It's a huge problem.

Sentencing, no. There were some big meta analyses done probably around 2012 or so that found sentencing to not be biased by race. I wish I still had access to that stuff so I could copy paste some things for you.

[–]witeowl 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

There were some big meta analyses done probably around 2012 or so that found sentencing to not be biased by race.

This article disagrees. So does this one, though it's less definitive in its conclusion. The only other meta-analysis I can find is from 2005, and it doesn't support your claim either.

[–]koprollerAnnoying Jerkface 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

You do realize what sub you're on, right?

[–]Random_Tangent 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

Every subreddit is stormfront when you're awful enough.

[–]TriXandApple 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

When you're on reddit.

[–]omniron -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

.034% of all blacks being a murderer doesn't justify extra scrutiny on the 100% of black people.

[–]Detective51 -4ポイント-3ポイント  (0子コメント)

There's your answer. White carrying weapon, white 66,909, black carrying weapon 45,842. If the 12% population figured out, that would mean only 8,029 of blacks were armed. Remembered the killer by police stats are mostly all self defense or saving the lives of other. When cops encounter more firearms on the street, more deaths occur.