Perhaps you could re-read the article this discussion is about. You're misrepresenting (and projecting other ideas onto) a viewpoint that you seem to fundamentally misunderstand.
Semantics do matter, especially when specifics are used to highlight division, and that division is used to justify more violence (such as murders committed by the very people who are protesting).
- Politicians that state "all lives matter" by and large do not support action to reduce police violence in general.
- Groups that state "all lives matter" often exist to directly counterprotest groups that state "black lives matter".
- Groups that state that "all lives matter" often also state "blue lives matter" and espouse support for the police in favor of protestors.
Do you disagree with those statements? If you agree with those statements, why would someone who believes that police violence is a problem choose to associate themselves with the police over other people protesting police violence?
It is more pragmatic to support the group that causes you more concern, if you have two concerns that are temporarily at odds. Ergo, if you, aware of the above, say "all lives matter", you know that you are associating yourself with people who condone police violence against everyone. This would imply that you believe the "danger of racism" in the BLM movement is of greater concern than police violence.
Please critique my logical progression there.
To be clear, while you may have only the best intentions when you say "All Lives Matter", it is naive to believe that everyone else who says the same does. When you choose to use a politically charged slogan you should be aware of the message that sends. You ultimately cannot choose how people will interpret your words, and that they see your words by their association instead of your intention is not the recipients fault.
You're saying that "because X group said Y and X group also does Z, Y supports Z".
Your premise is based on a genetic fallacy, and your argument implies a false dichotomy. Your claims are hasty generalizations with insufficient evidence.
I'm not making an argument about beliefs, but about perception.
I don't support everything Joe Biden does, but I still throw my support behind the democratic party because there are only two realistic options in the US today, and the other one is far worse.
If you're going to choose to say "All Lives Matter", you are choosing to involve yourself in a binary. And ignoring the context of that binary (that "All Lives Matter" is a reactionary statement that came about only in response to the statement/movement "Black Lives Matter") is done at one's own risk.
> Your claims are hasty generalizations with insufficient evidence.
So you disagree that "All Lives Matter" is a reactionary statement that only came into being post-"Black Lives Matter"?
Edit:
On Blue Lives/ All Lives people minimizing violence against black people[0].
And Tim Scott, who is known for being an "All Lives Matter" proponent, opposes ending Qualified Immunity (and indeed his proposed bill on police reform does almost nothing). Whereas Colorado's QI-ending bill was sponsored by Leslie Herod, who joined a Black Lives Matter march.
In the House, the Qualified-Immunity ending bill[1] is sponsored by only Democrats, among them many who are openly pro-Black Lives Matter, and, well Republicans don't seem to be[2]. Swallwell supports ending QI, Gaetz does not. Swallwell says Black Lives Matter. Gaetz refuses to say that, instead saying that All Lives Matter. Is that enough evidence?
> I'm not making an argument about beliefs, but about perception.
* sigh * I miss the day when we could state our beliefs and defend them on principle rather than on perception, trying to guess which groups may choose to be offended.
> * sigh * I miss the day when we could state our beliefs and defend them on principle rather than on perception
Yeah, this was never the case for large swaths of people.
Truly the good days in history, where Civil Rights activists noted that, ethically, segregation was problematic. Everyone agreed and racism was solved. They didn't need to worry about offending anyone, people just understood them. Legislation followed swiftly without much kerfuffle. There was no worry about offending the sensibilities of the "white moderate" (letter from a Birmingham Jail really showing up today!)
Missing the days when you didn't need to worry about how your views were perceived is itself a privilege.
Please stop putting words in other people's mouths or implying that someone is associated with racism when they're stating their beliefs and defending those beliefs with principles. It takes a more nuanced understanding of reality to accept the fact that someone can miss certain aspects of the past while at the same time acknowledging the imperfections of the past.
The freedom to express ideas - even controversial ones - is at the heart of a truly free society. A viewpoint based on sound principles can be true, while also being offensive to someone or a group of people. That doesn't make the viewpoint wrong. A doctor who objectively describes how a person's weight may be detrimental to their health is stating a medical fact, even though it may be deeply offensive to the patient.
To imply that taking offense (over "semantics" used by some people who express their views) is somehow equivalent to the unjust laws mentioned in Letter from Birmingham Jail is, in its own way, a mockery of what Martin Luther King Jr was fighting for. He defended free speech, even when it was offensive at the time. In our time, we speak up about our beliefs and some see them as offensive, but those freedoms should be defended all the same. Publicly shaming people based on false interpretations, and in many cases causing harm to them (as we've seen in the news recently in response to conservative viewpoints being expressed) is an obstruction of those liberties.
If you disagree with someone, debate them on principle. On the other hand, if you pretend that what they're saying is invalid because someone else chooses to be offended by it, you are no longer talking about objective reality. Without a basis in objective reality, public discourse becomes nothing short of a shouting match with rules that change with the wind. We've seen an explosion of that kind of behavior recently on social media.
Instead of being so adamant about picking sides and being "right", let's all listen a little more - to all viewpoints. Let's not paint someone as the devil because they disagree with us (or because we've given them a label based on other people with that viewpoint), but instead offer them a bit of respect and understand that their intentions may be just as honorable as our own, albeit colored by different circumstances and experience.
> Please stop putting words in other people's mouths or implying that someone is associated with racism when they're stating their beliefs and defending those beliefs with principles.
Saying "the slogan you choose to support will be perceived as being associated with racism" is a statement of fact. You can argue that that association is wrong, and you are free to try and change that association, but in the meantime, you should acknowledge that fact.
> It takes a more nuanced understanding of reality to accept the fact that someone can miss certain aspects of the past while at the same time acknowledging the imperfections of the past.
I agree. You seem to have missed my point. Claiming broad things about the past having been a certain way misses the nuance that for many people it wasn't actually that way. It's a privileged view on history. Having privilege isn't racist. Let's all be a little less defensive, shall we?
> The freedom to express ideas - even controversial ones - is at the heart of a truly free society. A viewpoint based on sound principles can be true, while also being offensive to someone or a group of people. That doesn't make the viewpoint wrong. A doctor who objectively describes how a person's weight may be detrimental to their health is stating a medical fact, even though it may be deeply offensive to the patient.
I agree. So please stop taking umbrage when I correctly point out that certain slogans are associated with racism. I'm stating facts.
> If you disagree with someone, debate them on principle.
We're having a discussion about semantics. "All lives matter " and "black lives matter" are political slogans. Which one you choose to associate with sends signals that are based on context.
If you believe that it is more important to express that all lives matter than that black lives matter because a "race blind" statement is more powerful (or something, you haven't actually taken the time to explain the principles on which you're operating anywhere in this thread), you're free to express that view! You can do it! We have strong protections on your freedom to express ideas, even controversial ones. But because of that, others are also free to express their own ideas, such as criticism of yours, like that you are ignoring context.
> Instead of being so adamant about picking sides and being "right", let's all listen a little more - to all viewpoints.
I don't want to listen to nazis. I don't have anything to gain from listening to nazis. It is physically uncomfortable for me to listen to nazis. It makes me anxious. It is ultimately a waste of my time to listen to them.
I'm not saying that all views I disagree with are nazis, but the implication that free expression requires others to listen to you is a dangerous one. We can all draw the line somewhere on who we listen to. You have no right to my time or my audience, and it is not reasonable to substitute your right to speak with my right to ignore you. The opposite is also true, you're well within your rights to ignore me, and I support that for you.
Broadly, I think it's ironic how much your responses are colored based on things I didn't say. You haven't actually taken the time to respond to my thoughts or words, nor does it seem that you even took the time to ponder on them. You instead ranted about only tangentially related topics. And that's your right! You can do that. I can't stop you, you're welcome to ignore me.
But all those nice words about "debate" and "listening" to other viewpoints ring a little hollow when you don't actually engage with any critique.
Semantics do matter, especially when specifics are used to highlight division, and that division is used to justify more violence (such as murders committed by the very people who are protesting).