Why Don't ALL Lives Matter?

When murders occur, it is almost always the case that the victim is someone the murderer knows personally. And it's still the case that for black people, that's usually other black people, just as for white people, it's usually other white people. 

What we are really talking about here, what BLM is trying to call attention to, is the perception that black people are unfairly, disproportionately targeted by local police departments, which are still disproportionately white. 

So if you think BLM is being divisive, is it not more divisive for a predominantly white police force to engage in racial profiling, and disproportionately target black people?

Madeleine Albright (perhaps THE ugliest woman on earth!) is a democrat, right? :-)

'Propaganda counterattack' my bifurcated butt!  The phrase itself is DELIBERATELY exclusionary!

BTW, do you have a link to statistics regarding the disproportionate number of blacks brutalized by kowards in kevlar?  I'd love to have/use it in discussions with various thug apologists.

Prolly when it's the truth or even remotely representative of reality. :-)

The easiest way to overcome the perceptual disparity is to say that all lives matter, no?  Hell, I'd be satisfied with the slogan "our lives matter."

I rarely see a brown or asian police but I would not say that brown people and asians are then treated unfairly by the police because of that. If brown people were treated unfairly I would still not want a brown lives matter group because it is a way to make things worse not better.

I suspect you're right.  That's all the more reason to declare that all lives matter. Want a compromise?  OK. How about "our lives matter" or "our lives matter, too"? :-)

     "All Democrats are NOT democrats."

They might as well be.  Guilt by association. :-)

You're asking cops--armed thugs/kowards in kevlar to whom most laughably refer as 'heroes'--to be decent human beings?  CLEARLY you're an idealist. :-)

But seriously, that's what chaps my a$$ about all this.  Nobody's addressing or focusing on the REAL problem/issue here, and it's one which TRANSCENDS racial boundaries.  Blacks aren't the only ones being brutalized, maimed and killed by Police State Amerika, but that point is being completely ignored. It's being ignored because people are fixated on asinine slogans.

Well, suppose in your experience, and in the experiences of other brown people you know, there was a common thread of mistreatment and discrimination against you by the police. That's how some black people are apparently feeling in America right now, and there are stats that support this. I don't know that BLM was the best choice of slogan, but only because of the way it is unfairly turned against them with the reply of "All Lives Matter". BLM is supposed to mean that all lives do matter, yet black lives are treated as though they matter less, hence the slogan affirming that yes, they do matter, just as much as everyone else.

I guess it all depends on how much value we place on inclusiveness. Ironic, ain't it? :-)

     "Black Lives Matter is a divisive thing."

SPOT the phuck ON!  And to prove your point:

Worst part is, it also draws attention away from the REAL problem of police abuse!  Abuse of ALL of us!

The topic/question isn't about me, RP.  Google the term 'ad hominem.' :-)

One would certainly be forgiven for thinking so, anyway. :-)

Not at all. I'm challenging you to come up with a counter to your own argument. If you want to play around with philosophy and rhetoric, you should at least be aware of the principle of charity.

I'll give you a brief introduction, by way of a pertinent example.

Consider the statement "Black Lives Matter": The least charitable way you could interpret this is to mean "Only Black Lives Matter". The most charitable way you could interpret this is "All Lives Matter, and by the way, so do Black Lives". If you argue against the former, you are really just attacking a straw man. Try dealing with the latter, and see what kind of argument you come up with.

Once more as it seems I must: The topic/question isn't about me, RP.

The question stands on its own WITHOUT attacking the one who asks it.  If you are incapable of responding to the question on its own merits, then don't play. It's a pretty simple rule, really.

I like you, RP, so I'm going to give you a little hint.  When a response contains two or more instances of the word 'you,' the respondent is trying to change the subject, avoid the topic and/or attack the OP for daring to ask a controversial question.  It's an indication of a weak argument.

In the response to which I'm now responding, the word 'you (or variations thereof)' occurs FOUR times.   In the original (your) response to the question, the word 'you' occurs THREE times.   On SEVEN separate occasions/instances, YOU have attempted to make ME the topic of conversation.

Consider this YOUR first instruction on how to AVOID argumentum ad hominem. :-)

All cancer matters too. So when they go about doing just breast cancer I get really upset and tell the supporters of breast cancer all cancer matters.

Well, it's going to be about you as long as you continue to misrepresent what you try to argue against. Fix your approach, and then maybe we can actually have a discussion. Fix your approach, and maybe others will follow suit, and there can actually be some kind of reasonable discussion about race in America. Until then, we have this.

What you seem to be missing, is that I'm not attempting to address your argument, because it's broken from the get-go. In addition to which, it's really unoriginal, and boring.

#AllBoobsMatter

OK, inasmuch as you clearly do not wish to address the TOPIC, but RATHER discuss me at great/obsessive length:

To know whether I'm 'misrepresenting' anything (much less an argument which I've never attempted to proffer), you would have to know ME. You clearly do not. Hell, in most instances you don't even ASK me to clarify. You jump to conclusions ASSUMING you can read my mind or assay my agenda. You cannot.  And inasmuch as you cannot, the only thing I will repeatedly 'fix' is your constant stream of logical fallacies. On that you can count!

And speaking of which, perhaps now you would like to summarize my 'argument' as you understand it.  What points have I made for/against the phrase Black Lives Matter? (Note: to answer this adequately, you're gonna have to review the entire thread. Careful, RP!  It's a trap!! :-))