๐ณ๐ฑ
I feel like we need a term that means something similar to "All Lives Matter" but without the anti-BLM connotation that phrase has. Somethign that means a more positive version of that (truly that all lives matter)... I'm thinking I'm going to start using #LivesMatter for that in the future. Hopefully it will be more unifying a phrase.
@freemo I hope you mean well, but if you are afraid to say with conviction something as vague as all lives matter just because bunch of idiots don't think so, there is your problem.
If you have ANY conviction you are sure about, you have to say it. Ignoring non-black lives while looking at racial tensions is exactly how things got this bad.
@LukeAlmighty I'm a little confused by the way you worded your response "if you are afraid to say with conviction something as vague as all lives matte" .. are you saying I shouldnt be afraid to say all lives matter? or that because im afraid to say all lives matter I might have bad intentions, or are you saying that if i say all lives matter it might suggest I have bad intentions?
can you please rephrase your response so I can understand.
@freemo
Say what you believe, especially if you see someone else suppressing that truth.
Yes, by most accepted definitions of morality ALL lives matter. If you're only focusing on problems of one group, you will only create more tension. Inevitably and always.
@LukeAlmighty Then we agree.
I do not disagree with the idea or phrase "all lives matter", the issue is that as a motto it was hijacked and corrupted as early on when that phrase became a motto for a movement it was used largely in opposition of BLM rather than as a movement in its own right. So the phrase got tainted by that. The meaning of the phrase still has value but sadly its likely to cause issues.
I feel "Lives Matter" means virtually the same thing, but has none of that taint. Also if anyone tries to turn it into something negative it is easy to point out the intention transition from "All Lives Matter" to "Lives Matter" as a way to show compassion and address that negative connotation thus disarming the criticism against it to some degree.
@freemo We do not agree, and do not even try such gaslighting again.
First: All lives matter is the proper response to someone ignoring problems of most of population.
Second: If there are people who are willing to ignore problems of significant parts of population, it's important to resist their attempts at ruining more lives.
Third: BLM is a terrorist organisation, that causes nothing but escalation of racial tension.
And finally: Saying that because bunch of terrorists don't like a phrase because that phrase includes people other then them is a proper reason to give up a phrase that has a cultural significance and is both truthful and complete is in my opinion the definition of moral weakness.
It would be both immoral and strategycally retarded to do so.
@LukeAlmighty Your last message before this one we did agree, it wasnt gas lighting. The things you stated in that message were all statements that on their surface I agreed with. dont be a pompass ass.
Now this message which I am replying to now.. we agree on point 1 as stated (though as I said Lives Matter is likely more tactful and means the same thing), but otherwise either response, since they both mean the same thing, is entierly appropriate in my mind
to point 2, we also agree.
to point 3, no we dont agree there. BLM is not organized. People who have used that banner have acted as terrorists, others have not (and even decried those who did at times).
Your final point becomes moot since we dont agree on the third point.
@freemo ok, if you need it spelled out:
'Lives matter' implies 'some' not 'all', so, the statement is not COMPLETE.
And for the second joke you inserted in your argument, you reversed some and all again. Enough of BLM activists are aggressive towards white people for me to see them as a representative of that group.
There are peaceful people in every group you can think of, so I don't really care to argue about percentages while anti-white riots are going on...
@LukeAlmighty what about "lives matter" implies only some? .. but ok, Ic an easily meet your demand. You would then presumably be ok if the phrase used is "Every Life Matters"?
@freemo
I would still consider it morally and strategically retarded to give up the momentum because of a few bigots, AND, it will receive exactly the same arguments against it as all lives matter.
But yeah, at least it won't be as easy to turn this phrase to another discrimination tool.
But still be careful with this crusade of yours. Bigots LOVE to deform definitions. Diversity didn't always mean everyone except white males you know...
@LukeAlmighty Thats just it, All Lives Matter has no momentum. Its reputation as a phrase has been spoiled by it being used more as an anti-BLM phrase than an independent movement that it has no momentum at all
@freemo @LukeAlmighty
I think it's more strategically retarded to use All Lives Matter or similar tags, if you want your message to be heard. It looks like you are trying to downplay what happens to black people in your country.
I think that black lives matter speaks more broadly about all systemic problems black people have.
There is some intersection with problems all races have, but they are still disproportionately targeted and they are a minority in this country so I would prefer to not poison their tags.
If you want to tackle the problem of police brutality what about #PoliceThePolice or something similar.
Yes BLM is fine for addressing black issues. I am asking mostly about good phrases that talk about the abuse of all races, by police, but in a way that doesnt dismiss any black issues by doing so...
PoliceThePolice I think could work, though I dont think it really explicitly shows a multi-racial unity in the message, which is important. We need some message that emphasizes the fact that all races are being hurt by government abuses specifically the police. To me "PoliceThePolice" doesnt really emphaize the "all races are effected" clause and thus lacks the unity needed
@freemo @vnarek @LukeAlmighty departments of internal affairs being controlled by independent citizen groups
How would that independence be implemented differently than it currently is? They are already independent in the sense that they are autonomous from the groups they investigate. What would you change exactly?
@freemo @LukeAlmighty @vnarek internal affairs investigators are grabbed from within the police departments, few internal affairs apparatuses have independent civilian over site of the investigations.
The independence they currently have is mostly a dog and pony show.
It should be a completely different agency that recruits by itself from civilians with a naturally combative presence including their own armed officers.
If that is the case (I admit i dont know) then I agree, pulling IA agents from the police department itself would be self defeating.
@freemo
That was more a response to @LukeAlmighty . Yeah, I understand. This is hard.
Yea sadly im not sure it would work with americans, they have too much tunnel vision.
@moonman
Yeah I feel the same. Additionally, I think by addressing the issues BLM are speaking about we could potentially help all races. Solutions to these problems are not black centric.
I still feel with freemo about the unity. It would be much more effective if other races saw why BLM would be beneficial for them too.
@LukeAlmighty @freemo
See that point about fixing the black problem helps everyone, that is the reverse of my thinking..
If we see this as a predominately racist problem (and there are racist elements dont get me wrong) then we look for solutions to address racism to solve it. But screening officers for past racism, for example, might cause the number of black lives killed to come closer to the number of white people killed, but by in large the problem isnt solved, you still have massive numbers killed.
However if we recognize the problem is police brutality and that the racism aspect of it is not the central point (though certainly worth being pissed over all the same).. then we can seek actual solutions that solve the real problem. This is when you start looking more into if the police officer has violent tendencies towards anyone (not just blacks) for example and might look at their overall kill ratio that includes whites. The end result would be you get actually violent cops off the street and while you didnt address the racism issue directly, it still solved the problem of violence to everyone, including blacks.
@freemo
I don't think this is going to be proposed. Even if it does then I don't see anything bad about it. Most likely they are going to implement some police accountability policies, which would benefit everyone.
We can do that in steps and discussion about police brutality would be less poisoned if both blacks, whites and others died at proportional rates. I know it sounds horrific, but it is still a step forward.
@moonman @LukeAlmighty
@vnarek
Thats my point.. We need a message which 1) does not downplay what happened to blacks adn 2) is inclusive of the fact that this happens to all races and is a unified threat... BLM doesnt do that, ALM doesnt do that. I'm open to suggestions.
@LukeAlmighty