Why is saying "All Lives Matter" considered negative to the BLM community?

elfa82 · 19日前

This post has been locked because it is answered and has since devolved into uncivil arguments.

MountPoo · 19日前

This is the best explanation that I've seen yet from /u/GeekAesthete (https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3du1qm/eli5_why_is_it_so_controversial_when_someone_says/ct8pei1?st=iu5n8rcr&sh=b2a6d3af):

Imagine that you're sitting down to dinner with your family, and while everyone else gets a serving of the meal, you don't get any. So you say "I should get my fair share." And as a direct response to this, your dad corrects you, saying, "everyone should get their fair share." Now, that's a wonderful sentiment -- indeed, everyone should, and that was kinda your point in the first place: that you should be a part of everyone, and you should get your fair share also. However, dad's smart-ass comment just dismissed you and didn't solve the problem that you still haven't gotten any! The problem is that the statement "I should get my fair share" had an implicit "too" at the end: "I should get my fair share, too, just like everyone else." But your dad's response treated your statement as though you meant "only I should get my fair share", which clearly was not your intention. As a result, his statement that "everyone should get their fair share," while true, only served to ignore the problem you were trying to point out. That's the situation of the "black lives matter" movement. Culture, laws, the arts, religion, and everyone else repeatedly suggest that all lives should matter. Clearly, that message already abounds in our society. The problem is that, in practice, the world doesn't work the way. You see the film Nightcrawler? You know the part where Renee Russo tells Jake Gyllenhal that she doesn't want footage of a black or latino person dying, she wants news stories about affluent white people being killed? That's not made up out of whole cloth -- there is a news bias toward stories that the majority of the audience (who are white) can identify with. So when a young black man gets killed (prior to the recent police shootings), it's generally not considered "news", while a middle-aged white woman being killed is treated as news. And to a large degree, that is accurate -- young black men are killed in significantly disproportionate numbers, which is why we don't treat it as anything new. But the result is that, societally, we don't pay as much attention to certain people's deaths as we do to others. So, currently, we don't treat all lives as though they matter equally. Just like asking dad for your fair share, the phrase "black lives matter" also has an implicit "too" at the end: it's saying that black lives should also matter. But responding to this by saying "all lives matter" is willfully going back to ignoring the problem. It's a way of dismissing the statement by falsely suggesting that it means "only black lives matter," when that is obviously not the case. And so saying "all lives matter" as a direct response to "black lives matter" is essentially saying that we should just go back to ignoring the problem. TL;DR: The phrase "Black lives matter" carries an implicit "too" at the end; it's saying that black lives should also matter. Saying "all lives matter" is dismissing the very problems that the phrase is trying to draw attention to.

Lamprophonia · 19日前

While I can't explain it as eloquently as others have, here's a simpler one... when you hear someone say "Save the rainforest", do you think they mean "fuck all of the other trees"? When you see a bumper sticker that says "watch for motorcycles", do you think they mean "ignore everything else on the road"?

MainStreetExile · 19日前

They believe people that say that are deliberately misinterpreting their message and/or trying to derail their cause. Original BLM activists never said ONLY black lives matter (to my knowledge). They were trying to call attention to a specific type of problem (cops killing black people without justification). That was their narrow focus.

The whole situation has devolved into a huge mess. Anybody can claim to be part of BLM, so there are people out there doing shitty things and giving the rest of them a bad name. It reminds me of Occupy Wall Street. Not really any formal group structure or leadership, so the message gets lost and the members are mocked and marginalized. Additionally, some people don't believe the problem exists at all - e.g. the black people getting shot by police are doing something bad and shouldn't have put themselves in that situation in the first place.

MrPibbWasBetter · 19日前

I had an interesting interaction with the "All Lives Matter" crowd on my social media back when those officers were shot in Texas and Louisiana. Of course their response was to start posting "Blue Lives Matter" memes, changing their profile picture, etc.

So, one day I simply asked why officer's lives were more important than EMS, fire, or service members dying over seas/committing 22 suicides a day?

The response I got back was to the effect of "Those are all very important, too. However, right now, the issue of cops being shot is more pressing since it's on everyone's minds and the news media."

I then kind of retorted with "hm...does any of this seem vaguely familiar to you guys?", which fell on deaf ears. Not even the slightest hint of irony. One of the gentleman who responded was an actual county Sheriff. Not a deputy. The actual elected fucking Sheriff. It just did not compute that they were basically saying the same fucking shit.

So, I proceeded to pop open a bottle of Jameson and looked at flights to Tasmania.

Krinberry · 19日前

The house on fire is a good analogy. All houses 'matter', but if your house catches on fire, it requires immediate attention to help save it and the contents. It's not that the house is more important than the ones around it, it's simply the one most in need of attention. So when the firetrucks pull up and start to hose down that house, "all lives matter" is basically the neighbors nearby coming out and complaining that THEIR houses aren't getting equal attention.

KeithBeasteth · 19日前

I saw something, I believe on Reddit, but I can't exactly recall where.

The user said, "It's like going to a breast cancer rally and saying "All Cancers Matter". Of course all cancers matter, but saying it at said rally isn't in good taste."

zakarranda · 19日前

The basic premise of Black Lives Matter is the allegation (whether true or not) that society doesn't care about the lives of black people. To conjure a garden variety example, if a black man is murdered (as happens with alarming frequency in Cincinnati, where I live), there's nary a headline at all. If a white man is murdered, it makes headlines.

The more extreme - and provocative - example of "society doesn't care about the lives of black people" is the allegation (again, whether true or not) that police officers kill black men with impunity and without cause, and are not punished for it.

So that's the first part. Their argument is that society values white lives more than black lives. (Disclaimer: I'm Asian, so I see both sides - I've been discriminated against, but not to the degree the average black person is.) Given the evidence (i.e. the disproportionate media coverage/public outcry, or lack thereof), the argument seems to carry merit.

The counter "All lives matter" is reviled because it doesn't actually counter the original assertion. The phrase "Black lives matter" is truncated - what it should actually say is "Black lives matter too." Saying "All lives matter" is trying to contort the BLM message to say, "Black lives matter only," which is not what BLM is trying to say. It misinterprets what is a very serious and sober societal concern, and then dismisses it out of hand.

It's a combination of logical fallacies - it's an appeal to the stone (dismissing an argument as absurd without actually countering it), an irrelevant conclusion (making an argument that, valid or not, doesn't address the issue at hand), and Bulverism (concluding an argument is wrong and then explaining why, instead of using evidence to make conclusions).

In a purely polarized world, "All lives matter" does nothing but inhibit the social reforms that BLM seeks. Because racial discrimination does exist, and BLM seeks to remedy that, any attempts to counter them would, logically, be racist.

However, the world is not purely polarized. At best, "All lives matter" is a fallacious counterargument - answering a question to which BLM was not asking, and dismissing the question as answered. At worst, it's a deliberate and intentional contortion of BLM's ideals to paint them as self-interested. If I were to imagine motives for the latter (economic, capitalistic, societal, legal, legislative, electoral, or for law enforcement), any conscious twisting of the argument would be deliberately suppressing the black minority. Whether it's to silence an inconvenient political group, to restrain a population segment's income so they buy your product, or just plain irrational hatred, deliberately suppressing a minority is racism. I wager that some use of "All lives matter" is deliberate, while most is probably misinterpreting the conversation and using a logical fallacy as a result.

I encourage you to read this post (which has also been linked elsewhere in the thread) for another past discussion. For my part, I agree with BLM's arguments and motives, but dislike the use of verbal and physical intimidation in their delivery. Saying a white person can't champion their cause is still discrimination when there's no rational basis to support it ("You're not one of us" has limited, though sometimes valid, rational basis). I sympathize with their frustration and rage, but releasing it upon the innocent is neither just nor pragmatic. That said, I don't have a solution to these problems.

jlb8 · 19日前

It's a deliberate misinterpretation in order to be dismissive.

DabblesInPacifism · 19日前

The point of the phrase "black lives matter" is to say that "black lives matter too" The argument being that it is a given that white lives matter in this country, as white people don't experience systematic, institutionalized racism as black people and other minority groups do.

When you say "all lives matter" it takes away from the issues that "black lives matter" is putting a spotlight on.

The closest example I've heard of why "all lives matter" is in bad taste is; you wouldn't go to a breast cancer rally and start telling everyone that all cancers matter. Of course all cancers matter, but that particular event is not about all cancers, it's about breast cancer. Same kind of deal with black lives matter.

Just trying to explain as best I can. While I support the sentiment of BLM a lot of the people claiming to represent that movement have taken it off the rails. I don't want to argue the merits of the movement here I'm just trying to provide an explanation.

19日前

[removed]

HelveticaBOLD · 19日前

Another way to look at this:

A charity holds an event to raise money for AIDS research. In the middle of the event, an attendee suddenly stands up and shouts, "what about cancer research?!" -- yes, cancer research is just as important as AIDS research, but that's not what we're talking about right now.

stupids0mething · 19日前

If my goal is to save the pandas, making a sign saying "Save the Animals" doesn't put any focus on the pandas. Black people are being killed by the police. Not everyone else but specifically blacks are who are getting targeted. Using a general term in place of a specific term takes all of the focus away from it.

Hungry_Bananas · 19日前

[removed]

CaptainOrenn · 19日前

The phrase "black lives matter" is directed at police forces. It is to bring attention to the fact that black people and other minorities are disproportionately and unfairly targeted by the police and is a form of discrimination. Saying "all lives matter", while certainly true, doesn't emphasize the issue of police brutality against the black community. It doesn't make you a racist to say "all lives matter", but it does distract from the purpose of the original phrase to point out discrimination. By bringing up the alternative of "all lives matter", it sends the message that you either wish to hide the plight of African Americans or outright deny it all together. So in some ways it's a marketing issue. If they started with "all lives matter" it wouldn't be connected to black people. If they decided to use "only black lives matter" or "black lives matter too" one would be racist and the other wouldn't really pack enough punch for a slogan. "Black lives matter" is strong and direct and nobody thinks that those who say the phrase are also implying other races don't matter.

Azusanga · 19日前

Seems like you've gotten a lot of good answers. Here's an analogy I heard once. "Black lives matter is like... If a house in a neighborhood was on fire, would the fire department put the water on all of the houses, because all houses matter? No, they'd put the water on the house that's burning because that's the house that needs it the most."

vastat0saurus · 19日前

Because it is just an ignorant statement to make. Of course, all lives matter, but this is not the topic of conversation. By saying "All lives matter" you are not contributing to the discussion and are simply shutting up the ones who say "Black lives matter"

Furthermore, it is also relevant to acknowledge that NOBODY went around saying "All lives matter" before "Black lives matter" became a thing. Mass shootings? War? Refugees? Nobody cared, but when it comes to race people immediately needed to defend themselves instead of engaging the problem. That's where the racist label comes from.

TL;DR: Imagine you say "My leg is broken" and I would answer with "All legs should be treated equal". It's not wrong, it's simply not helpful.

Gnokey · 19日前

They actually consider it racist, not just negative. I'm not sure how that works out but there you go.

The reason is because they are trying to frame the issue as one of the police being racist rather than it being about the nature of training cops receive, their increased militarization in recent decades and the closing of ranks among police and District Attorney's offices in the past when incidents happened leading to expectations of a lack of accountability.

I personally think police violence stems from the latter causes far more than the former and the problem will never be fixed if we do not address those root causes. Focusing on racism where it is not the key factor while ignoring everything else will not fix anything, and can only make things worse, as we are seeing with attacks on police and incidents like that female officer up North who got the shit kicked out of her because she didn't want to draw her firearm on a dude fucked out of his mind on angel dust because of the possible repercussions of using deadly force to her department and family.

DoxBox · 19日前

Because it's assumed that life matters, and black people are routinely treated as though their lives don't matter (by police, the establishment, etc).

There's a "too" that goes unsaid at the end of BLM.

Race	number	percent of police killings	percent of population
White	350	47.43	63
Black	184	24.93	13
All other	204	27.64	24
Total	738	100.00	100

OutOfTheLoop

Links to view before submitting

discord server

know your meme

urban dictionary

list of retired questions

subreddit rules

Rules

1. Search before you post.

2. You must post a full and completely clear, unbiased question about a specific event or trend in the title.

3. Top level comments must contain a genuine and unbiased attempt at an answer.

4. Follow reddiquette in both behavior and voting.

Flairs + Filters

Interesting subreddits

Mod note

調停者