Liberal logic

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 69
Topic's author
#1
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,242
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
If I strawman here, it is an accident

Dialogue 1:

Far left Liberals: We want free healthcare

Far right Conservatives: Free healthcare is socialist.

Far left Liberals: Well, FINE; We'll be socialists.

I'm thinking, "imagine if conservatives did this with racism"

Dialogue 2:

Far right Conservatives: We believe in the all lives matter movement as opposed to the black lives matter

Far right Liberals: Anyone who supports all lives matter is a white supremist.

Far right Conservatives: Well, FINE; We'll be white supremists.

If conservatives in Dialogue 2 did what liberals did in dialogue 1, they would lose elections for the foreseeable future.  I guess far lefties get a pass to decide to be far left.  It makes no sense.
#2
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,237
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
Wanting free healthcare (actually it’s *affordable* healthcare) is not the same thing as being a white supremacist.

Plus “All lives matter” is a response to Black Lives Matter. It’s black people saying “stop killing us” and white people saying “hey, why should you being killed warrant any special attention?” It’s just plain stupid.
Topic's author
#3
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,242
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Liberals come out as socialist all the time, and socialism is a radical left ideology.  If conservatives did that with racism(a radical right ideology), there would be a backlash.
#4
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,468
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
Any person who says All Lives Matter thinks Black Lives Matter including me.
#5
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,468
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
It’s cause the left has their media propaganda machine covering for them
#6
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,237
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
Liberals come out as socialist all the time, and socialism is a radical left ideology.  If conservatives did that with racism(a radical right ideology), there would be a backlash.
Because they’re not remotely the same thing. Do you believe in social security? If so, then you’re a socialist too. That’s what democrats are talking about, not this cartoonish idea that conservatives concocted in their heads. Every developed nation on earth is a mixture socialism and capitalism, including the US. This isn’t comparable to white supremacy.
#7
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Double_R
Plus “All lives matter” is a response to Black Lives Matter. It’s black people saying “stop killing us” and white people saying “hey, why should you being killed warrant any special attention?” It’s just plain stupid.
It is saying, 'why do you only care about yourselves'? They say black lives matter, and they only care when black people are killed. So, all lives matter would be saying "hey let's be upset when anyone unjustly is killed".

blm responds more or less with "you're racist for caring about White people dying. You should only care about us"
#8
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,237
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ILikePie5
Any person who says All Lives Matter thinks Black Lives Matter including me.
Ok cool. So on 9/11 come down to ground zero with an “all buildings matter” t-shirt and explain that same logic to the families of the victims.

#9
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,237
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@bmdrocks21
blm responds more or less with "you're racist for caring about White people dying. You should only care about us"
If someone says to you “my life matters”,  they’re not telling you that your life doesn’t. They’re telling you this because they don’t feel like their life is being valued. That’s basic common sense. 

To hear black people plead with the public to value their lives and think to yourself “hey what about me”, well, I’ll just say is quite amazing.

#10
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Double_R
No, they only care about themselves, as evinced by them rioting every time a black guy gets shot by police, even though it is justified 9/10 times. When have they ever protested when a Latino, Asian, or White got shot?

They want us to only care about them, because when we try to make it an all-inclusive movement, they call you racist. Obviously, it is for not exclusively caring about them. If you think that everyone matters, you're a racist, apparently. 

The logical conclusion is: caring about White people dying is racist. The ADL even labeled the slogan "White Lives Matter" as a "White Supremacist phrase". https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/white-lives-matter
#11
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,894
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
Because the left has indoctrinated generations with the idea that a mostly Centrally Planned economy run exclusively from Washington DC will work under their rule where it hasn't historically anywhere in the world. Or in any of the cities where they have had absolute rule over for the past 50 years.
#12
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
The assumption here is that socialism and white supremacy are the same things... that Liberals *become* socialists whenever a conclusion happens to be a socialistic action. Question, whenever you fish do you become a bear? No, of course not, merely doing a thing that is a property of something else does not actually make you that thing. The fact that people support socialist things do not actually make them socialist. You, typically, support socialist things because you are already a socialist, you do not become a socialist because you start to support a thing - not typically. 

Furthermore, you don't seem to understand the difference between socialism, communism, Leninism, and marxism - they are not at all equitable. This is... yet another strawman. It doesn't matter how "cringy" you find it - it is much more cringy to continue to make all of the strawmen and pretend as if it actually applies. People who support racist. So, similarly, a racist does not become a racist by supporting a racist thing, they are typically already racists who then support that thing - because people who aren't racist, definitionally, don't support racist things. 

This is all.. you know... barely mentioning how different these two things are. 
#13
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
The assumption here is that socialism and white supremacy are the same things... 

I think what you might be trying to say is that socialism and white supremacy do not exist as opposite ends of the same continuum.  And if so, I agree.  That's exactly right.  But, the OP seems to be talking about are trends where people change their political positions in response to how they are characterized by their political opponents.  

Liberals, after having been called "socialists" by their political rivals (conservatives); thereafter become socialists.

Conservatives, after having been called "white supremacists" by their political rivals (liberals); thereafter become white supremacists. 

So that's a bit different than them being at opposite ends of a spectrum.  But the issue of describing "white supremacy" as being some kind of opposite to anything on the left is itself a problem.  Because it isn't, as you're correct to note.  There is no connection between "white supremacy" and "conservatism."


#14
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@ILikePie5
@Double_R
So on 9/11 come down to ground zero with an “all buildings matter” t-shirt and explain that same logic to the families of the victims.
I agree that "all lives matter" was  response to "black lives matter," and the broadening from only "black" to "all" implies a deliberate effort to shift the focus from people who are shot/killed by or in the custody of police, to something more nebulous.  

  • When asked, the "all lives matter" types tend to emphasize one or more of cops who are killed in the line of duty, victims of crime in general (and specifically murder/gun violence victims), victims of crimes committed by illegal aliens and etc.
  • But also when asked, the "black lives matter" types tend to be unwilling to acknowledge things like who is/what groups are most likely to be behind the barrel of any gun involved in killing black people (it's not cops). 
I'm pretty familiar with the data relating to crime rates, gun crimes in particular; murder, including by and against cops; etc. and while there are highly publicized incidents that draw national attention, like that soldier in Virginia Beach in the black SUV (I think was a Tahoe?) or the kid who was shot in Minneapolis suburb because the cop thought she drew a taser when in fact she drew her sidearm.  And of course George Floyd, the others and their fallout. 

But I'm not interested in the identity politics issue.  Maybe I would be if I was black, but I'm not.  I'm interested in this from the perspectives of:

  • Actually reducing cop-to-citizen interactions, in general (so less people crossing paths with the police); and 
  • For those who do cross paths with the cops, preventing those encounters from escalating.
I'd note, however, that at least 99.95% of all bodycam footage I've seen depicts cops being reasonable in response to all encounters at all levels of intensity with all people of all skin colors.  The incredibly infrequent exceptions are the only ones that make the news.  In this way, I think cops do not get a fair shake in the media or culture.  On the other hand, any exception however infrequent would be better avoided.  

The problem is that the identity politics issues, and media/cultural emphasis on them, isn't making the situation better.  If anything, they're making everything worse.  

White liberals use black issues to virtue signal, and black people as political cannon-fodder for their higher aspirations.  I can't think of a single policy that actually helped black people in the long run, democrats are responsible for since the Johnson administration.  Obamacare is the sole exception, and he was the first democrat since LBJ that actually got things right. 

I reflect on every major legislative accomplishment, outside of that, passed by Democrats.  For example, the Community Reinvestment Act that Bill Clinton expanded in the 1990s, based on the idea that this would enable low-income people to more easily qualify for mortgages.  Even when he and Democrats in congress knew that blacks would be the first to sign up for adjustable rate mortgages, the first to default and the most likely to be financially ruined forever.  

Or even this so called "covid relief bill," which was nothing more than democrats screwing the very people that, for example, were first-time black voters in Georgia, that Democrats registered in 2020 who had never voted before.  Democrats ruined the economy with lockdowns that failed to even slow the rate of community spread, with full knowledge that blacks would be the most acutely harmed by those policies.  




#15
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,237
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@bmdrocks21
They want us to only care about them, because when we try to make it an all-inclusive movement, they call you racist. 
I’m sorry, were white people enslaved for 400 years, and then segregated, lynched, redlined, and mass incarcerated? Do white people ever get followed or pulled over because of their skin color? Are white people ever told to go back to their country?

Black people focus on themselves because no one else in this country ever has. You don’t get to demand inclusiveness when you don’t have the same grievances. Yes white people are killed by the police also, but no white person ever got shot by the police because they were white.

That is the point of Black Lives Matter. No they don’t want you to only care about them, they want you to care about about little Jamal as much as you care about little Timmy.
#16
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
I’m sorry, were white people enslaved for 400 years, and then segregated, lynched, redlined, and mass incarcerated?
I assume you are referring only to the United States, or colonies prior.

Because the history of "white people" (and everyone else on earth) being enslaved predates Western civilization in any form.  It is the historical norm across all human civilizations from antiquity to present.  

But even in the context of Western civilization, white people were routinely enslaved in the Roman Empire.  Slavs, from Eastern Europe, were routinely sold as chatals throughout the Muslim world from before the 9th century AD, particularly in North Africa and Islamic Spain. That continued in some form until well into the 16th century.   Similar practices occurred over the entire course of the Ottoman Empire's existence, until WWI.

#17
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Double_R
I’m sorry, were white people enslaved for 400 years
They were for hundreds of years in the North African slave trade. We just don't complain very much, so you probably weren't aware of it.

 lynched
3,446 African Americans and 1,297 whites were lynched between 1882 and 1968. So yes, Whites were lynched.

redlined
Black home ownership rose very quickly during "redlining"

mass incarcerated
You know the saying: "do the crime, do the time". Well.... that

 Yes white people are killed by the police also, but no white person ever got shot by the police because they were white.
When we have tens of thousands of black and Latino cops, you're telling me not one killed a white guy for being white? And how many blacks are killed for being black per decade? One? Because all the cases that BLM touts like Michael Brown end up being justified shootings when actual forensic data is shown (he was trying to steal the cop's gun)

That is the point of Black Lives Matter. No they don’t want you to only care about them, they want you to care about about little Jamal as much as you care about little Timmy.

This is all based on the lie that black men are disproportionately shot and killed by cops. If you look at data by the amount of arrests by race and fatal shootings that occur, whites are overrepresented compared to blacks.
#18
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,894
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
When we have tens of thousands of black and Latino cops, you're telling me not one killed a white guy for being white? And how many blacks are killed for being black per decade? One? Because all the cases that BLM touts like Michael Brown end up being justified shootings when actual forensic data is shown (he was trying to steal the cop's gun)
When a POC does that, its reparations, not racism :D

That's why in liberal clown world POC riots are peaceful demonstrations and looting is grief shopping for reparations.

BLM has been the best race hustle on American society since Tawana Brawley

BLM has far surpassed the millions of dollarsJesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were able to hustle out of the white sheep. One of the co-founders has multiple multi-million dollar houses. It's all in the news. Talk about reparations for "oppression" lol! 

here are some fun facts.
1) Legal Nigerian immigrants are the wealthiest class out of all the classes in America.
2) The Wealthiest actor in all of American history is Samuel Jackson.
3) 3 of the Wealthiest athletes of all time are Black American athletes.

Mah opppprrreessssion!

#19
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,237
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@bmdrocks21
[White people] were [enslaved] for hundreds of years in the North African slave trade. We just don't complain very much, so you probably weren't aware of it.
3,446 African Americans and 1,297 whites were lynched between 1882 and 1968. So yes, Whites were lynched.
Black home ownership rose very quickly during "redlining"
WTF? Did you seriously just try “both sides” racism? 

In your tit for tat rant you seem to have missed the most important word in my first paragraph... “then”. I wasn’t listing things that randomly happened at some point, I was going through a period by period history of black people in America. For you to pretend that there is any comparison to the history of white people is breathtakingly absurd.

We’re not talking about the African slave trade, we’re talking about America and how we got to where we are here in America today.

Your lynching statistic proves my point, not yours. During the period you referenced white people outnumbered black people by more than 7 to 1, yet nearly 3 times as many black people were lynched. That’s bad enough, but that’s still not even the point. Black people were lynched by white people for being black. White people were lynched by white people for being sympathetic towards blacks.

Home ownership rates rose for everyone during the redlining period. The difference is that black people were not allowed to buy houses in white neighborhoods so that the value (and by extension wealth) of homes in white neighborhoods rose substantially relative to black neighborhoods, the effects of which are very prevalent today.

When we have tens of thousands of black and Latino cops, you're telling me not one killed a white guy for being white?
I considered this a test of whether you are arguing honestly or not, you failed.

You know damn well what I’m talking about. You know that black people are judged differently because they are black and that this works its way into policing. You know that a police officer is more likely to “fear for his life” if he’s dealing with a black person than a white person. You may not think the difference is as significant as most black people do, but please stop pretending this isn’t obvious.

This is all based on the lie that black men are disproportionately shot and killed by cops. If you look at data by the amount of arrests by race and fatal shootings that occur, whites are overrepresented compared to blacks.
You are just factually wrong. From 2017-2020 there were 1,683 white people killed by police vs 983 black people, yet white people outnumber black people today by almost 6 to 1.

We can argue all day about why that is, and for what it’s worth I don’t necessarily disagree with the argument that some of it is caused by black people resisting arrest among other things, but that is not relevant to what we’re arguing about. Let’s remember where this started, you are claiming that All Lives Matter is a legitimate slogan and that black people are wrong to take issue with it. I’m explaining why that’s nonsense.

Black people are on perfectly legitimate grounds to ask for their lives to be valued like everyone else given the history and current state of affairs. You can claim they are wrong in their perceptions, but that’s not what All Lives Matter does. ALM is an attempt to throw away the grievances of others without acknowledging them or doing any work to reconcile them, and to egregiously place yourself above them while doing it.
#20
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,924
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
TheUnderdog should be renamed TheStrawmanMaker.
#21
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Double_R
Your lynching statistic proves my point, not yours. During the period you referenced white people outnumbered black people by more than 7 to 1, yet nearly 3 times as many black people were lynched. That’s bad enough, but that’s still not even the point. Black people were lynched by white people for being black. White people were lynched by white people for being sympathetic towards blacks.

I am aware of disproportionalities. I see it every year in crime rate reports. You implied White people weren't lynched, I showed that it happened plenty. And no, they weren't lynching people because of their melanin or sympathy towards people with more melanin. It was mainly vigilantes hanging rapists and murderers.

Home ownership rates rose for everyone during the redlining period. The difference is that black people were not allowed to buy houses in white neighborhoods so that the value (and by extension wealth) of homes in white neighborhoods rose substantially relative to black neighborhoods, the effects of which are very prevalent today.

Why did the value rise substantially more in white neighborhoods? Does less crime lead to higher home values? And step number one is getting people housed. Housing for blacks rose quicker during the redlining period than any other period recorded. 

You know damn well what I’m talking about. You know that black people are judged differently because they are black and that this works its way into policing. You know that a police officer is more likely to “fear for his life” if he’s dealing with a black person than a white person. You may not think the difference is as significant as most black people do, but please stop pretending this isn’t obvious.

More white men are shot per violent crime arrest than black men. Obviously systemic biases are leading cops to shoot white men at a disproportionate rate.

You are just factually wrong. From 2017-2020 there were 1,683 white people killed by police vs 983 black people, yet white people outnumber black people today by almost 6 to 1.

Ok, it doesn't matter what percent of the population they are. It matters how many arrests occurred. If a group was 99% of the population and had 2 arrests and one guy got shot, then a very large percent of them get killed during an arrest (50%). Conversely, if 1% of the population had 1,000 arrests and 2 got shot, they have a much lower likelihood of getting killed by cops(.2%) than the 99% group(50%) during an arrest.

Black people are on perfectly legitimate grounds to ask for their lives to be valued like everyone else given the history and current state of affairs. You can claim they are wrong in their perceptions, but that’s not what All Lives Matter does. ALM is an attempt to throw away the grievances of others without acknowledging them or doing any work to reconcile them, and to egregiously place yourself above them while doing it.

BLM is just a divisive organization. If their only goal is to stop shootings against black arrestees, then they are clearly showing that their priority is their own group. Why should a Latino devote time and money to a group that clearly couldn't care less if a young Latino man in his neighborhood is killed by cops? If he wants to make his community a better place, he wouldn't waste time joining or supporting BLM. However, a group that says that all lives matter has much broader appeal in that it doesn't only care about one small group. You're much likely to solve an issue with one large group vs 3 or 4 small ones. But I suspect it is all about the Benjamins- the victim card is quite valuable these days.

And sure, the organization is based on a complete lie, but I suppose, as you say, that is besides the point.
#22
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Double_R
Plus “All lives matter” is a response to Black Lives Matter. It’s black people saying “stop killing us” and white people saying “hey, why should you being killed warrant any special attention?” It’s just plain stupid.
But whites are not killing black people. The vast majority of crime is intra-racial, but when it comes to who is killing who, whites have a much stronger claim to request that black people stop killing us than the other way around. Look at table 14 and do the math. It works out to about 550k black-on-white violent crimes a year vs around 56k white-on-black violent crimes a year.

#23
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,924
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@thett3
What economic factors do you believe play into blacks getting much less quality education and opportunities to learn a path in life and way out of the 'hood' that doesn't involve violence?

Just to be clear, violence on a criminal level is only part of what BLM seeks to stop. Police mishandling and bias as well as courtroom bias are other major factors (as well as general economic fairness and equality of opportunity).
#24
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@bmdrocks21
And no, they weren't lynching people because of their melanin or sympathy towards people with more melanin. It was mainly vigilantes hanging rapists and murderers.
Yeah there’s a conflation between lynchings, which were the kind of extrajudicial mob justice common in societies without strong law and order, and murder. I read about the last “lynching” that occurred in the 1980s, and it was just a straight up murder. There was no mob involved and there was no crime alleged. There’s been an intentional effort to conflate the two, so as to make random murders seem a lot more common than they actually were. I’ve read about some lynchings and they were incredibly horrible events, and often inflicted the kind of suffering I wouldn’t sentence rapists and murders to, especially without due process. They were plenty bad without having to lie about it.

It really is disheartening how little the typical American knows and how deep the propaganda has sunk in. People really believe that it was an every day occurrence for mobs of whites to just pick up random black people and hang them. The Jim Crow south was bad enough without having to invent fairy tales about it. Just be honest about history, it doesn’t paint anyone in an entirely flattering light, I promise you! 
#25
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@RationalMadman
I think that the train that took American families to the middle class left the station decades ago, and most blacks at the time weren’t allowed to come on for the ride. 

I definitely don’t think things are one sided. One thing that gives me hope is that I believe the policies that would most help poor black people are also the ones that would most help poor white people, which is basically just bring back as many blue collar jobs as you can. 

I bring up the crime thing not to attack black people (believe it or not I truly don’t enjoy brining it up. It makes me feel bad.) but purely to poke holes in the liberal narrative which is toxic and just engenders more conflict. Yes, white people committed great crimes against black people in the past. Right now black people are committing more crimes against white people. It’s basically just a cycle of violence and the way to get past it is to move forward, but as long as we are trying to get people riled up over injustices that happened decades ago, committed by people long dead, we won’t move forward 
#26
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
The problem with any government program is it should be funded. If it's not it's a drain on the system and will not sustain itself.  SSI is going to have this problem.  Heath care certainly is.  I think if they had done it in increments and started with kids under 18 there would have been blowback. 
#27
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,237
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@bmdrocks21
You implied White people weren't lynched, I showed that it happened plenty. 
I never implied that. Your entire counter point here was literally in response to one word; “lynched”. You heard that and it translated into “no white people were lynched”. If there was ever a perfect example of what is wrong here, this is it. It’s all about you.

You completely disregard the history here and reduced everything down to one statistic. You disregard the fact that lynchings were used as a way to remind black people that they had no rights and were less than human, and that white people were still in charge. You completely throw away the trauma that the black community suffered and is still working to overcome, which is right at the heart of this conversation. 

You claim lynchings were mostly done against murderers and rapists, yet you find nothing odd about the fact that black people had 3x as many rapists and murderers despite having 1/7th the population compared to white people, and this was at a time when black people were scared to death of white people because slavery was still fresh. That alone demonstrates everything I’m actually talking about.

Housing for blacks rose quicker during the redlining period than any other period recorded.
So Black people should be thankful for what took place during the period where the banks singled out their neighborhoods and decided they would not loan money for houses in them and also decided that they would not loan money to black people trying to buy a house in a white neighborhoods. Great argument.

More white men are shot per violent crime arrest than black men.
Per violent crime arrest? Setting aside that you provided no source for that very selective category, you know who else is not factored into those statistics? George Floyd, Eric Garner, Breanna Taylor, Tamir Rice, Fernando Castile, etc. etc. etc. You know, pretty much every single person BLM has protested. We’re not talking about people shot while being arrested for violent crime, we’re talking about people being arrested for things like using a counterfeit $20 bill, or playing in a park, or sleeping.

However, a group that says that all lives matter has much broader appeal in that it doesn't only care about one small group.
Did you listen to a word I said? I explained the problem with ALM in detail. Do you have any response to it?

And sure, the organization is based on a complete lie, but I suppose, as you say, that is besides the point.
It is, because the question of whether it is correct for black people to believe they need to be singled out for protection is an entirely separate conversation. This is about the motives behind Black Lives Matter and whether All lives Matter is a legitimate slogan. Again, I went through this in my last post.



#28
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,924
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@thett3
With regards to lynching, some of the most brutal lynchings have actually been done in recent times by Africans to each other (burning accused pedophiles alive with tires around them). This happens in other places too but generally is least common now in this day and age amongst Caucasian-heavy nations.

So, I agree, lynching has never been a Caucasian-on-black-only thing globally. However, where it was most prominent amongst Caucasian societies was murkier than elsewhere (where it's consistently 'mob justice' as you put it). For instance, in europe the witch hunts (not metaphor, the literal drowning and/or burning of females based on them being particularly offputting in nose shape or warty appearance) as well as of 'whores' (basically any woman accused of adultery or sleeping around, even if she/they was/were raped) were in particular horrors and they were almost always white-on-white (even though the actual OG witches of this planet were pagan Africans and in their cultures even a male could be a witch doctor).

A lot of people assume words and concepts apply only in a western context and indeed give it connotation that it globally only has as a minority (as it's meant the 'other way' much more). Another example of this is having an issue with Islam. Generally it is actually Muslims themselves who are fighting over Islam and it's rarely a racism thing. If you would find fault with Islam in the 'western world' (other than on a relatively anonymous debate site like this) you'd be called a racist against certain Islamic ethnicities. Even if you never even lifted a finger or encouraged it, you could be accused of a hate crime for the things you say about their religion. This is a huge issue in all honesty but to be fair, in Islam and Judaism both, their actual scripture seems to imply that if you're 'born into the religion' you have no right to leave it whatsoever (and should be killed, it says in Islam). Thankfully, not all adhere to this but entire nations like Pakistan, Saudi, Iran and such have this essentially legislated by they cover it up with things like 'blasphemy laws' and 'apostacy laws' so that they can say they don't hurt non-Muslims even though they do hurt Muslims who become non-Muslims ('hurt' is an understatement).
#29
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,259
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Everything apparently needs funding.....It's how the system works globally.

Wouldn't altruism be fantastic?
#30
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,237
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@thett3
But whites are not killing black people. The vast majority of crime is intra-racial
I didn’t say white people are killing black people, I said black people are asking to stop being killed by police officers, the ones who are being paid to protect and serve.