Unarmed man shot in miami by police

[Gravekeeper]

Of course it makes it better! At least for the Black Lives Matter folks. See, they have sent the message loud and clear that the only police shootings that matter are when a white cop shoots someone of color...even if the cop was in no way a racist and the shooting was necessary (such as the Michael Brown case). Obviously though in this case there was no excuse for this flagrant abuse of power and I hope the "cop" gets thrown under the bus.

I honestly can't be arsed to explain to yet another willfully ignorant person on the Internet that the movement is Black Lives Matter Too not Only Black Lives Matter.

[s_stabeler]

to be fair, the BLM movement can be a bit... stubborn about making their point- I remember news stories about BLM activists interrupting a Clinton campaign event and claiming theirs was the only issue that matters.

It's also true that the immediate problem is that cops are too quick to use lethal force. ( yes, the difference matters. If the problem was primarily racism, then the appropriate response would be to stamp out racism in the police- which admittedly needs doing anyway- while the appropriate response to trigger-happy police is better training on recognising when lethal force is appropriate.(and better enforcement of rules on use of force) THEN stamp out the racism.)

[Estil]

I honestly can't be arsed to explain to yet another willfully ignorant person on the Internet that the movement is Black Lives Matter Too not Only Black Lives Matter.

*looks up ignorant in the Liberal's Dictionary*

Ignorant -- Anyone who is not a liberal or expresses a non-liberal viewpoint.

Yet that weird comic about all houses should be hosed down whether on fire or not (said by no real life person ever) which makes no sense whatsoever is non-ignorant? In the famous words of John Stossel, give me a break :P

[Greenday]

*looks up ignorant in the Liberal's Dictionary*

Ignorant -- Anyone who is not a liberal or expresses a non-liberal viewpoint.

Yet that weird comic about all houses should be hosed down whether on fire or not (said by no real life person ever) which makes no sense whatsoever is non-ignorant? In the famous words of John Stossel, give me a break :P

Considering how conservative I am compared to the rest of the board, it's pretty obvious what the comic was getting at. So you can claim they are just trying to say conservatives are ignorant, but when other "conservatives" have no problem understanding it, the Webster dictionary version probably serves just fine.

[Gravekeeper]

*looks up ignorant in the Liberal's Dictionary*

Ignorant -- Anyone who is not a liberal or expresses a non-liberal viewpoint.

Yet that weird comic about all houses should be hosed down whether on fire or not (said by no real life person ever) which makes no sense whatsoever is non-ignorant? In the famous words of John Stossel, give me a break :P

Not understanding an issue is not a political position.

[Talon]

Not understanding an issue is not a political position.

I want that on a T-shirt

[Estil]

Considering how conservative I am compared to the rest of the board, it's pretty obvious what the comic was getting at. So you can claim they are just trying to say conservatives are ignorant, but when other "conservatives" have no problem understanding it, the Webster dictionary version probably serves just fine.

Let me rephrase that, I get what the comic was trying to say, it's just a bad analogy/comparison that's all.

[Canarr]

Let me rephrase that, I get what the comic was trying to say, it's just a bad analogy/comparison that's all.

It's actually a great analogy. Yes, all "Houses" matter, as a basic principle, and should be saved if on fire. But - at least in the US - the only "House" that is actually, currently on fire, is the "Black House". Thus, it's not prudent to talk about putting out other fires, that aren't really burning.

[s_stabeler]

except that isn't entirely true. There are two biases that cause the problems BLM wants to address.
1) the bias that black people are criminals (note- I am explaining the bias, I do not agree with it.)
2) that all criminals are likely to try to kill police, so are legitimate targets.(not even remotely true, of course- even for the violent ones.)

what BLM is trying to address is the all black people are criminals part. what ALM people are trying to address is the "all criminals are likely to try to shoot at police, so can be shot at" part. (lethal force is appropriate only when someone poses an immediate threat to the officer's life.)

[Estil]

It's actually a great analogy. Yes, all "Houses" matter, as a basic principle, and should be saved if on fire. But - at least in the US - the only "House" that is actually, currently on fire, is the "Black House". Thus, it's not prudent to talk about putting out other fires, that aren't really burning.

Yes, IF on fire. But that's all the more reason the analogy in the cartoon didn't make sense because he was hosing down the house that wasn't even burning at all.

If we're really gonna be on the subject of idiotic/stupid behavior regarding houses burning down, how about when firefighters ignore a burning house just because of some stupid technicality like it's a block out of their jurisdiction or something? :P

[s_stabeler]

actually, it's somewhat cold, but there is a reason why they do it. It comes down to the fact that houses in a FD's jurisdiction contribute to an FD;s budget, and if they responded out of their jurisdiction, then they run the risk of people outside their jurisdiction not paying them for coverage. It's why FDs only help out other FDs when they have Mutual Aid agreements. ( basically, a Mutual Aid agreement comes down to "if any FD that is a party to this agreement needs help- or an engine of another party is closer to a fire- then the other parties to the agreement will offer aid until the situation is resolved") with the sole exception of terrorist attacks- on 9/11, many Oklahoma firefighters went to help out NYFD since NYFD had sent help when Oklahoma was bombed by Timothy McVeigh.)

[Canarr]

Yes, IF on fire. But that's all the more reason the analogy in the cartoon didn't make sense because he was hosing down the house that wasn't even burning at all.

Yes... that's kind of the point.

The Black Lives Matter guy is the one saying, "My house is on fire! Please help me save my house!" while the other guy - the one with the hose - is the All Lives Matter guy, who's saying, "Yes, but my house matters, too, and if it were burning, it should be saved, too! As a matter of fact, I'm gonna hose it down now, just on general principle, because it could catch on fire."

Are you really not getting that?

[TheHuckster]

Yes... that's kind of the point.

The Black Lives Matter guy is the one saying, "My house is on fire! Please help me save my house!" while the other guy - the one with the hose - is the All Lives Matter guy, who's saying, "Yes, but my house matters, too, and if it were burning, it should be saved, too! As a matter of fact, I'm gonna hose it down now, just on general principle, because it could catch on fire."

Are you really not getting that?

I think what the All Lives Matter guy is really arguing is that he believes his house is also on fire (and to a certain extent, it's true; there are cases where cops are abusive to non-minorities which are likely eclipsed to a certain extent by these high profile incidents). Not to mention, violence of all kinds is a huge problem across all demographics.

I acknowledge that violence is disproportionately inflicted on minorities, and it's an issue that needs to be addressed. The (non-racist) section of the All Lives Matter group are claiming that BLM are trying to focus the issue on their cause too much, while ignoring other cases of violence that affects other people. Whether you agree with that claim or not, it's not exactly the same as what's depicted in the cartoon, where everyone else's house is perfectly fine and not in need of some fire fighting.

[KabeRinnaul]

I think what the All Lives Matter guy is really arguing is that he believes his house is also on fire (and to a certain extent, it's true; there are cases where cops are abusive to non-minorities which are likely eclipsed to a certain extent by these high profile incidents).

He's not being delusional, what he's doing is pragmatic but self-centered. ALM Guy is wetting his house so embers from the burning house don't catch it on fire. This is actually a thing that's done to prevent house fires from spreading to other properties, but here the point is that the ALM Guy, in doing so, is ignoring an actual ongoing crisis in favor of his own potential problems.

It's a good analogy, though I've seen it expressed in simpler ways. Trae Crowder (a stand-up comedian/political commentator who characterizes himself as "the liberal redneck") said replying to BLM with "all lives matter" was like "telling Susan G Komen to knock it off with all the pink ribbons because all cancers suck."

I also recall one analogy from early in the movement that said it was like being at Thanksgiving dinner, and watching everyone get served but you, and when you objected to being left out, being berated for making it all about you because everyone else deserves to eat, too.

[TheHuckster]

He's not being delusional, what he's doing is pragmatic but self-centered. ALM Guy is wetting his house so embers from the burning house don't catch it on fire. This is actually a thing that's done to prevent house fires from spreading to other properties, but here the point is that the ALM Guy, in doing so, is ignoring an actual ongoing crisis in favor of his own potential problems.

Or, perhaps we could do both? As I've said a few times before about this whole ALM vs. BLM stuff, I think you'll find that at least the rational (read: majority) of people subscribing to either label has the same goal: To reduce overall violence and hate. Let's hose down the big freaken fire, sure, but there's nothing wrong with wetting one's proverbial own house as well to prevent spread of fire (which is the analogy of violence and hate, after all).