what do you think?

DrillSergeantCat

crowsgirl15 said:

I didn't think so. But in that case, I'd really ask yourself: then why does it matter that CNN chose an "innocent-looking" picture rather than a "sinister-looking" picture?

I feel like if you point a gun at an officer, you're asking to be shot. Anyone with gun training knows you never point a gun at someone unless you're willing to pull the trigger, and you never pull the trigger unless you intend to kill. In the case from Milwaukee, Syville Smith, he was armed, but he's being portrayed as an innocent (from the limited stuff I've seen). 

There was a case here in Oklahoma several years ago, where a couple of kids were being initiated into a gang and had to rob a pharmacy. One of them was armed and the other was not. The one that was armed ran and got away when the pharmacist pulled a gun. The unarmed child was not as fortunate as he was still trying to put on his mask. The local news stations kept ignoring the fact that he was being initiated into a gang as the reason he was there. I feel like it was to give extra sympathy to a kid who was up to no good. 

I'm of the belief that if you walk into my home or place of employment with intent to harm me, that I have the right to protect myself. I'm the innocent one. The pharmacist (up until he walked back to the kid to empty his clip and make sure he was dead) was the innocent one, but many were hailing the kid as a hero. There were no heroes in that situation. Most of these shootings, there isn't a hero, but to show the perpetrator in a more favorable light than the officer serves to make people fear the police. Am I explaining my thoughts clearly (my head is full of snot today)?

charlotte989875

DrillSergeantCat said:

crowsgirl15 said:

I didn't think so. But in that case, I'd really ask yourself: then why does it matter that CNN chose an "innocent-looking" picture rather than a "sinister-looking" picture?

I feel like if you point a gun at an officer, you're asking to be shot. Anyone with gun training knows you never point a gun at someone unless you're willing to pull the trigger, and you never pull the trigger unless you intend to kill. In the case from Milwaukee, Syville Smith, he was armed, but he's being portrayed as an innocent (from the limited stuff I've seen). 

There was a case here in Oklahoma several years ago, where a couple of kids were being initiated into a gang and had to rob a pharmacy. One of them was armed and the other was not. The one that was armed ran and got away when the pharmacist pulled a gun. The unarmed child was not as fortunate as he was still trying to put on his mask. The local news stations kept ignoring the fact that he was being initiated into a gang as the reason he was there. I feel like it was to give extra sympathy to a kid who was up to no good. 

I'm of the belief that if you walk into my home or place of employment with intent to harm me, that I have the right to protect myself. I'm the innocent one. The pharmacist (up until he walked back to the kid to empty his clip and make sure he was dead) was the innocent one, but many were hailing the kid as a hero. There were no heroes in that situation. Most of these shootings, there isn't a hero, but to show the perpetrator in a more favorable light than the officer serves to make people fear the police. Am I explaining my thoughts clearly (my head is full of snot today)?

The punishment for being "up to no good" or even committing a crime in this country is not to be executed without a trial.

We have courts, procedures, policies, laws, regulations, and norms that govern how we prosecute, try, and convict people who have committed crimes in this country, and it does not involve killing them in the streets. Yes, crime is a bad thing and we should work to decreasing it, but just because you commit a crime does not mean you lose all your basic, constitutional, or human rights. As a matter of fact most of our basic constitutional rights are designed to protect people who are accused of committing crimes.

DrillSergeantCat

charlotte989875 said:

The punishment for being "up to no good" or even committing a crime in this country is not to be executed without a trial.

We have courts, procedures, policies, laws, regulations, and norms that govern how we prosecute, try, and convict people who have committed crimes in this country, and it does not involve killing them in the streets. Yes, crime is a bad thing and we should work to decreasing it, but just because you commit a crime does not mean you lose all your basic, constitutional, or human rights. As a matter of fact most of our basic constitutional rights are designed to protect people who are accused of committing crimes.

I'm sorry but I still believe that if you walk into my place of employment with the intent to harm me, I have every right to protect myself. 

eta- We've basically now come to the whole gun debate and I'm a firm believer in my right to protect myself with my firearm but I understand that is an UO here. 

crowsgirl15

DrillSergeantCat said:

crowsgirl15 said:

I didn't think so. But in that case, I'd really ask yourself: then why does it matter that CNN chose an "innocent-looking" picture rather than a "sinister-looking" picture?

I feel like if you point a gun at an officer, you're asking to be shot. Anyone with gun training knows you never point a gun at someone unless you're willing to pull the trigger, and you never pull the trigger unless you intend to kill. In the case from Milwaukee, Syville Smith, he was armed, but he's being portrayed as an innocent (from the limited stuff I've seen). 

There was a case here in Oklahoma several years ago, where a couple of kids were being initiated into a gang and had to rob a pharmacy. One of them was armed and the other was not. The one that was armed ran and got away when the pharmacist pulled a gun. The unarmed child was not as fortunate as he was still trying to put on his mask. The local news stations kept ignoring the fact that he was being initiated into a gang as the reason he was there. I feel like it was to give extra sympathy to a kid who was up to no good. 

I'm of the belief that if you walk into my home or place of employment with intent to harm me, that I have the right to protect myself. I'm the innocent one. The pharmacist (up until he walked back to the kid to empty his clip and make sure he was dead) was the innocent one, but many were hailing the kid as a hero. There were no heroes in that situation. Most of these shootings, there isn't a hero, but to show the perpetrator in a more favorable light than the officer serves to make people fear the police. Am I explaining my thoughts clearly (my head is full of snot today)?

Hang on, to the first bolded, that's a whole different issue that has nothing to do with the media or optics...

The question of whether someone pointed a gun at an officer or didn't point a gun at an officer are two inherently different facts. It has nothing to do with optics. Whether or not someone is armed or pointed a gun is not even close to the same thing as whether you look innocent or sinister...and wasn't what you were addressing in your initial post.

You responded to a question about innocent looking and sinister looking photos with "well, people who are armed are dangerous", and I don't know where to go with that...yes. You're right. People shouldn't point guns at cops.

Now, to the second point: that was my point. If someone views a black teenager in a more favorable light because of an "innocent picture" vs. a "sinister picture"...that is a societal issue. That's not a media issue. A person who points a gun at a cop is just as dangerous in a hoodie or a tie, and a person who does not point a gun at a cop does not become more dangerous because there's a picture on his facebook of him holding a gun. And the fact that people believe that there is an inherent difference between an "innocent-looking" black teenager and a "sinister-looking" black teenager is something that should be brought attention to.

southernbelle0915

DrillSergeantCat said:

crowsgirl15 said:

I didn't think so. But in that case, I'd really ask yourself: then why does it matter that CNN chose an "innocent-looking" picture rather than a "sinister-looking" picture?

I feel like if you point a gun at an officer, you're asking to be shot. Anyone with gun training knows you never point a gun at someone unless you're willing to pull the trigger, and you never pull the trigger unless you intend to kill. In the case from Milwaukee, Syville Smith, he was armed, but he's being portrayed as an innocent (from the limited stuff I've seen). 

There was a case here in Oklahoma several years ago, where a couple of kids were being initiated into a gang and had to rob a pharmacy. One of them was armed and the other was not. The one that was armed ran and got away when the pharmacist pulled a gun. The unarmed child was not as fortunate as he was still trying to put on his mask. The local news stations kept ignoring the fact that he was being initiated into a gang as the reason he was there. I feel like it was to give extra sympathy to a kid who was up to no good. 

I'm of the belief that if you walk into my home or place of employment with intent to harm me, that I have the right to protect myself. I'm the innocent one. The pharmacist (up until he walked back to the kid to empty his clip and make sure he was dead) was the innocent one, but many were hailing the kid as a hero. There were no heroes in that situation. Most of these shootings, there isn't a hero, but to show the perpetrator in a more favorable light than the officer serves to make people fear the police. Am I explaining my thoughts clearly (my head is full of snot today)?

Girl please. Just stop. Staaaaahhhhhpppp. You are playing smoke and mirrors with anecdotes here and "I have the right to protect myself" there and completely avoiding the real issue.

Racism is a problem in America. Fact. Black people fill our prisons at disproportional rates. Fact. A white person and a black person charged with the same crime get different sentences......in 2016. Fact. Black people are singled out as criminals. Fact. There is a systematic problem (even the DOJ has agreed) with police brutality and murder of unarmed, innocent black people. Fact. There is a strong distrust between police and minority communities. Fact.

Just because you heard that one time a gangbanger shot up a pharmacy and the coverage wasn't fair or that homeboy had a gun, so he had it coming.... I mean, really? That's what you come with in the face of data, facts, statistics of the overall problem? At least come with some substance that isn't shoved down your throat by Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly.

kimmiinthemitten

Blue lives aren't a thing. It's a uniform. That you can take off when your shift is over. Black lives are a thing because still today in America you're black first and American second. Case in point. 



I support Black Lives Matter because I've never been thrown out of a car for speeding, questioned wearing my natural hair to an interview, wondered if my name kept me from a job, been called a token. On the same hand, we can't keep paying cops $14.00/ hour to start and expect to have a competitive field to choose from. We can't keep basing police funding on property taxes and wonder why our most impoverished neighborhoods are full of cops who lack training and empathy. We can't keep militarizing our city forces and expect to not create an us vs them mentality. And we certainly cannot address systemic racism if white people keep denying its existence. 

Last night, a friend of mine was woken to a noise, saw someone on her porch and called 911. The man was arrested. His name is Anthony Ianotti. He was arrested last week for chocking his wife and released on a bond and tether, despite having a history for domestic violence, breaking and entering and fleeing arrest. The next day, he cut off his tether, went to his wife's grandmothers house and killed her and stole her car. A few days after that he was spotted outside of his FILs house. The FIL shot his gun in the air as a warning and called 911. He's been on the loose until last night.

Two years ago my brother (who has a handful of marijuana possession charges) was arrested for being with someone who stole deodorant at a CVS. He was sentenced to 90 days in county and spent 2 weeks due to overcrowding. 

Guess which person is black?  Think the system still isn't racist?

charlotte989875

DrillSergeantCat said:

charlotte989875 said:

The punishment for being "up to no good" or even committing a crime in this country is not to be executed without a trial.

We have courts, procedures, policies, laws, regulations, and norms that govern how we prosecute, try, and convict people who have committed crimes in this country, and it does not involve killing them in the streets. Yes, crime is a bad thing and we should work to decreasing it, but just because you commit a crime does not mean you lose all your basic, constitutional, or human rights. As a matter of fact most of our basic constitutional rights are designed to protect people who are accused of committing crimes.

I'm sorry but I still believe that if you walk into my place of employment with the intent to harm me, I have every right to protect myself. 

You have missed the point. I clearly said nothing about an individual's right to protect themselves. We have laws in this country. We have laws that protect an individual's right to self-defense and even to bear arms. If you are in a life and death situation we have laws that govern your right to protect yourself. 

We also have a system with a right to due process. Meaning that the police cannot simply execute someone who has committed a crime. It means that you can't just shoot someone because you don't like the way they look, even if they "look sinister". It means that when someone is accused of a crime, they are to be arrested, evidence against them is collected, Grand Juries are assembled to bring charges, trials* occur, and juries and/or judges determine whether they are guilty and what they appropriate punishment is, according to a set of laws and standards. One of the major problems we are seeing, and what many of the BLM protests have been about is that these systems and laws are not being applied equally in this country. Black men and women are not being afforded the presumption of innocence, they are not being arrested and tried and convicted, they are being shot, in the streets.

*Trials are actually becoming more and more rare.

kimmiinthemitten

Is this the same "media" that creates the problem?

The answer is yes, we just disagree on what the problem really is. 

DrillSergeantCat

@kimmiinthemitten and @southernbelle0915
That was actually one of my first comments, that sentencing is disproportionate between whites and blacks for the same crime. I have also admitted that I am wearing blinders. Kimmi - I really like your statement about how we pay cops and that is an excellent point. In talking about militarizing, what exactly do you mean? I feel like cops should have better weapons and protective gear than citizens especially because it's easier for citizens to get that same gear than it used to be. 

DrillSergeantCat

charlotte989875 said:

You have missed the point. I clearly said nothing about an individual's right to protect themselves. We have laws in this country. We have laws that protect an individual's right to self-defense and even to bear arms. If you are in a life and death situation we have laws that govern your right to protect yourself. 

We also have a system with a right to due process. Meaning that the police cannot simply execute someone who has committed a crime. It means that you can't just shoot someone because you don't like the way they look, even if they "look sinister". It means that when someone is accused of a crime, they are to be arrested, evidence against them is collected, Grand Juries are assembled to bring charges, trials* occur, and juries and/or judges determine whether they are guilty and what they appropriate punishment is, according to a set of laws and standards. One of the major problems we are seeing, and what many of the BLM protests have been about is that these systems and laws are not being applied equally in this country. Black men and women are not being afforded the presumption of innocence, they are not being arrested and tried and convicted, they are being shot, in the streets.

*Trials are actually becoming more and more rare.

An officer is still an individual though and their place of employment is wherever they happen to be. I know some of these cases (the guy who was shot in his car in front of his wife and child) were wrong, but I have to believe that the majority of officers won't shoot unless they feel their lives are in danger. 

charlotte989875

DrillSergeantCat said:

@kimmiinthemitten and @southernbelle0915
That was actually one of my first comments, that sentencing is disproportionate between whites and blacks for the same crime. I have also admitted that I am wearing blinders. Kimmi - I really like your statement about how we pay cops and that is an excellent point. In talking about militarizing, what exactly do you mean? I feel like cops should have better weapons and protective gear than citizens especially because it's easier for citizens to get that same gear than it used to be. 

Militarizing essentially means that police are adopting the weapons, tactics, mantras, mindsets, and strategies of the military. Increasingly seeing the people and communities that they serve as "enemies" rather than as partners. This has happened disproportionately in communities of color and in low socio-economic communities.

Here is an article from the Intercept that looks at the militarization of the U.S. , https://theintercept.com/2014/08/14/militarization-u-s-police-dragged-light-horrors-ferguson/

charlotte989875

DrillSergeantCat said:

charlotte989875 said:

You have missed the point. I clearly said nothing about an individual's right to protect themselves. We have laws in this country. We have laws that protect an individual's right to self-defense and even to bear arms. If you are in a life and death situation we have laws that govern your right to protect yourself. 

We also have a system with a right to due process. Meaning that the police cannot simply execute someone who has committed a crime. It means that you can't just shoot someone because you don't like the way they look, even if they "look sinister". It means that when someone is accused of a crime, they are to be arrested, evidence against them is collected, Grand Juries are assembled to bring charges, trials* occur, and juries and/or judges determine whether they are guilty and what they appropriate punishment is, according to a set of laws and standards. One of the major problems we are seeing, and what many of the BLM protests have been about is that these systems and laws are not being applied equally in this country. Black men and women are not being afforded the presumption of innocence, they are not being arrested and tried and convicted, they are being shot, in the streets.

*Trials are actually becoming more and more rare.

An officer is still an individual though and their place of employment is wherever they happen to be. I know some of these cases (the guy who was shot in his car in front of his wife and child) were wrong, but I have to believe that the majority of officers won't shoot unless they feel their lives are in danger. 

Except that's not true. A police office is a part of the state; he or she is responsible for enforcing the laws of the state and the country in which they serve. They are no longer civilians. There are rules that determine when they can discharge a weapon and it's not "whenever they feel they are in danger", their jobs are inherently dangerous.

When police take the law into their own hands, when they shoot an unarmed suspect, when they are not punished for that, it undermines the system our entire government is predicated on.

DrillSergeantCat

charlotte989875 said:

Militarizing essentially means that police are adopting the weapons, tactics, mantras, mindsets, and strategies of the military. Increasingly seeing the people and communities that they serve as "enemies" rather than as partners. This has happened disproportionately in communities of color and in low socio-economic communities.

Here is an article from the Intercept that looks at the militarization of the U.S. , https://theintercept.com/2014/08/14/militarization-u-s-police-dragged-light-horrors-ferguson/

Thank you for that article. I, honestly, have never seen anything like that before. I'm used to only seeing officers in black, blue, or brown, the only time wearing a helmet is if they're a motor jock, and the only firearm is their sidearm. I can 100% understand why there would be a fear of the police if this is how they're rolling up into your neighborhood. 

kimmiinthemitten

DrillSergeantCat said:

An officer is still an individual though and their place of employment is wherever they happen to be. I know some of these cases (the guy who was shot in his car in front of his wife and child) were wrong, but I have to believe that the majority of officers won't shoot unless they feel their lives are in danger. 

And this is why we need BLM. A combination of systemic racism and the militirazation (sp) of police have led to a heightened sense of danger. 

Systemic racism both leftover from the civil rights era and heightened by the bogus war on drugs have convinced people of all colors and professions that black people are inherently more dangerous, less trust worthy, etc.  This in turn leads to black people being disproportionately targeted by police and black people being the butt end of a more violent police force. 

Add to that, police stations bidding on equipment we use in wars. When you buy riot gear, you expect to need to use it. When you buy a tank, you expect to need to use it.  And when an underpaid, undertrained group of well armed people believe they are a target and the sole proprietor of justice and safety it creates an us vs them mentaltiy. Except these aren't military troops overseas fighting terror cells. They are the same people who drive down your street at night, and pull you over when you miss a stop sign. So when they buy these things with an expectation, who is the recipient?  American citizens. Our country doesn't have to be at war with each other, it's just damn profitable to be. 

kylexo

BLM is important, Blue Lives Matter is a bullshit reaction to BLM. PP have covered why, but ESPECIALLY ESPECIALLY the fact that blue uniforms can be taken off and black skin can't.

The country has HUGE problems with institutionalized racism, from our beauty standards to the fact that many people find darker skinned folks more threatening, or as @DrillSergeantCat mentioned, "sinister". I grew up a nice white girl in a nice town with very little to no crime and it was a huge shock to me the first few times i experienced and was educated about some of the discrimination friends of color had been dealing with their whole lives.

it's important to recognize privilege of all forms when talking about intersectionality in the american experience. 

MCmeow

Anyone who is Blue lives matter or All lives matter is a racist because these are a response to Black lives matter. There were no first two until BLM showed up. These white conservatives love blue lives matter so the issue is obviously in the word "Black".

It seems like cops, politicians, and mainstream media hosts are the only ones who face no repercussions for not doing their job. The rest of us would be fired.

also I highly recommend this interview by an ex-cop:
https://youtu.be/BopwzJ-9G0Y

DrillSergeantCat

kimmiinthemitten said:

And this is why we need BLM. A combination of systemic racism and the militirazation (sp) of police have led to a heightened sense of danger. 

Systemic racism both leftover from the civil rights era and heightened by the bogus war on drugs have convinced people of all colors and professions that black people are inherently more dangerous, less trust worthy, etc.  This in turn leads to black people being disproportionately targeted by police and black people being the butt end of a more violent police force. 

Add to that, police stations bidding on equipment we use in wars. When you buy riot gear, you expect to need to use it. When you buy a tank, you expect to need to use it.  And when an underpaid, undertrained group of well armed people believe they are a target and the sole proprietor of justice and safety it creates an us vs them mentaltiy. Except these aren't military troops overseas fighting terror cells. They are the same people who drive down your street at night, and pull you over when you miss a stop sign. So when they buy these things with an expectation, who is the recipient?  American citizens. Our country doesn't have to be at war with each other, it's just damn profitable to be. 

Thank you for that explanation. It makes total sense. It's like when a kid gets a new toy, they can't wait to play with it. 

short+sassy

Tip-toeing because I know this is an UO, but I really dislike the phrase "(insert word) Lives Matter", including the original "Black Lives Matter".  To me, that sentence...just the words of the sentence itself (not the thoughts behind it)...implies that a certain groups' life matters more than other lives.  So the phrase just irks me a little to hear, only because it connotes something different for me than it does for most people.

With that said, of course I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments behind it.  We certainly have a host of problems in this country where people are treated unfairly because of their skin color...all the way to the extreme of being more likely to be killed by a police officer in an unjustified shooting.  These inequities need to be brought to the forefront and need to be addressed.

I'm also of the opinion that most people, including police officers, are good people.  I think the vast majority of police officers risk their lives every day to help their communities and strive to do what is right.  But, like any group of people, you're always going to have bad ones.

To the original topic, I'm very much a traditionalist when it comes to country flags.  They are not to be bastardized to make one's statement.  They are to be flown respectfully, and in good condition, atop a flag pole only.  "Small" poles, like one would have off the eaves of their personal home, are also appropriate.  Taken down at night or lighted.  They are not to go on t-shirts, swimsuits, bumper stickers, or any other paraphernalia.  I don't side eye it if the intention is good, but it is not the proper way to display a country's flag.

monkeysip

short+sassy said:

Tip-toeing because I know this is an UO, but I really dislike the phrase "(insert word) Lives Matter", including the original "Black Lives Matter".  To me, that sentence...just the words of the sentence itself (not the thoughts behind it)...implies that a certain groups' life matters more than other lives.  So the phrase just irks me a little to hear, only because it connotes something different for me than it does for most people.

With that said, of course I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments behind it.  We certainly have a host of problems in this country where people are treated unfairly because of their skin color...all the way to the extreme of being more likely to be killed by a police officer in an unjustified shooting.  These inequities need to be brought to the forefront and need to be addressed.

I'm also of the opinion that most people, including police officers, are good people.  I think the vast majority of police officers risk their lives every day to help their communities and strive to do what is right.  But, like any group of people, you're always going to have bad ones.

To the first bold--it's interesting to me when people say this.  I don't understand how the sentence implies that at all.  To me, there's an implied "too" at the end of the sentence.  As in, "black lives matter too".  Not "black lives matter more" or something.

To the second bold (and I'm not trying to pick on you in particular, just addressing this common statement)--we have to be careful when we say things like this because it can suggest that the police system and police training are fine, but sometimes you just get bad cops.  The reality is that there is a problem with many police forces today.  How they're trained, how they're equipped, how they're paid (like Kimmie pointed out), their mentality, etc.  I'm NOT saying most cops are bad.  There's a lot of great cops, and I truly respect what they do for us every day.  But if we think of these cases as "bad apples"--then the focus is on just punishing those individuals.  We need to think of this as a systemic problem so we can think of more preventative solutions.

short+sassy

monkeysip said:

short+sassy said:

Tip-toeing because I know this is an UO, but I really dislike the phrase "(insert word) Lives Matter", including the original "Black Lives Matter".  To me, that sentence...just the words of the sentence itself (not the thoughts behind it)...implies that a certain groups' life matters more than other lives.  So the phrase just irks me a little to hear, only because it connotes something different for me than it does for most people.

With that said, of course I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments behind it.  We certainly have a host of problems in this country where people are treated unfairly because of their skin color...all the way to the extreme of being more likely to be killed by a police officer in an unjustified shooting.  These inequities need to be brought to the forefront and need to be addressed.

I'm also of the opinion that most people, including police officers, are good people.  I think the vast majority of police officers risk their lives every day to help their communities and strive to do what is right.  But, like any group of people, you're always going to have bad ones.

To the first bold--it's interesting to me when people say this.  I don't understand how the sentence implies that at all.  To me, there's an implied "too" at the end of the sentence.  As in, "black lives matter too".  Not "black lives matter more" or something.

To the second bold (and I'm not trying to pick on you in particular, just addressing this common statement)--we have to be careful when we say things like this because it can suggest that the police system and police training are fine, but sometimes you just get bad cops.  The reality is that there is a problem with many police forces today.  How they're trained, how they're equipped, how they're paid (like Kimmie pointed out), their mentality, etc.  I'm NOT saying most cops are bad.  There's a lot of great cops, and I truly respect what they do for us every day.  But if we think of these cases as "bad apples"--then the focus is on just punishing those individuals.  We need to think of this as a systemic problem so we can think of more preventative solutions.

The first bolded is EXACTLY how that phrase came across to me when I first heard it.  Within a short time, I understood my initial meaning of the phrase was not how people meant it and not how most people understood it to be.

I think that first impression was based more on my line of thinking that "Of course, black lives matter.  Everyone's life matters", so to point out a certain group was saying they mattered more.  Even though I get it now, I do!...that black lives have historically not mattered as much as other lives and they should matter as much...I just can't shake my initial bad impression of the phrase. 

Edited to add a note about the power of words.  For me, if the phrase had been your other example, "Black Lives Matter, Too".  That completely would have changed that initial meaning to me and I would have been screaming in my head, "Yeah! Black Lives Matter, Too!".

Totally agree with the second bolded.  I didn't mean to marginalize the big problem by implying "it was just a few bad cops".  Certainly better training and better pay to recruit a larger candidate pool will help to make police forces the best they can be and more well protected communities.

In fact, on a different police problem, they recently overhauled the sex crimes division of our local police force.  I'm not so sure how much better it has gotten, but there were some huge travesties going on.  Years long waiting list to process rape kits.  A lot of "victim blame" by officers.  Victims never having their calls returned.

So, I do hold out hope for solutions to come about as problems in our society gain more attention.

crowsgirl15

I do understand how someone could come to the "black lives matter more" conclusion...and though this certainly was a little snarky, I've shared this tweet a lot to help explain why I don't think that's fair. (Really hoping I attach an image correctly, I suck at this.)

The subtext of "black lives matter" isn't meant to be "black lives matter more". It's: "right now, our society isn't valuing black lives as much as white lives. So we want to remind the public that black lives matter too."

SaintPaulGal

monkeysip said:

short+sassy said:

Tip-toeing because I know this is an UO, but I really dislike the phrase "(insert word) Lives Matter", including the original "Black Lives Matter".  To me, that sentence...just the words of the sentence itself (not the thoughts behind it)...implies that a certain groups' life matters more than other lives.  So the phrase just irks me a little to hear, only because it connotes something different for me than it does for most people.

With that said, of course I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments behind it.  We certainly have a host of problems in this country where people are treated unfairly because of their skin color...all the way to the extreme of being more likely to be killed by a police officer in an unjustified shooting.  These inequities need to be brought to the forefront and need to be addressed.

I'm also of the opinion that most people, including police officers, are good people.  I think the vast majority of police officers risk their lives every day to help their communities and strive to do what is right.  But, like any group of people, you're always going to have bad ones.

To the first bold--it's interesting to me when people say this.  I don't understand how the sentence implies that at all.  To me, there's an implied "too" at the end of the sentence.  As in, "black lives matter too".  Not "black lives matter more" or something.

To the second bold (and I'm not trying to pick on you in particular, just addressing this common statement)--we have to be careful when we say things like this because it can suggest that the police system and police training are fine, but sometimes you just get bad cops.  The reality is that there is a problem with many police forces today.  How they're trained, how they're equipped, how they're paid (like Kimmie pointed out), their mentality, etc.  I'm NOT saying most cops are bad.  There's a lot of great cops, and I truly respect what they do for us every day.  But if we think of these cases as "bad apples"--then the focus is on just punishing those individuals.  We need to think of this as a systemic problem so we can think of more preventative solutions.

Exactly.  

Why is Black Lives Matter the only time that saying one thing automatically means the opposite of that thing for other categories?  Black Lives Matter/white lives don't matter.  It's important to get enough vegetables in your diet/fuck fruits and proteins and meats and grains and dairy.  Work together to end breast cancer/all the other cancers should be allowed to run rampant.  Don't forget to wash behind your ears/leave the rest of your body to languish in its own filth.  Umm...nope.   

Sometimes we need a little reminder that something matters.  Take my example of "wash behind your ears."  A parent's reminder to keep your ears clean doesn't mean that clean ears are more important than other body parts.  It just means that this is something that may be overlooked.  Black lives matter.  As a culture we haven't been doing a great job of remembering that.  It is horribly tragic and deeply offensive when a black individual is gunned down in the street or in their home or wherever.  We shouldn't need to be reminded that these murdered human beings matter--just like we shouldn't need to be reminded to wash behind our ears--but the fact is that these things keep happening.

This movement isn't a case of ONLY Black Lives Matter, it's a reminder that Black Lives Matter, TOO!

SaintPaulGal

Oh, and I don't give a hoot what people do to flags--make them black and white and blue or wear them on clothing or leave them outside at night or burn them in protest or just to heat their homes in the winter.  It's just a piece of fabric with a recognizable pattern, sort of like a sports jersey. But if you fly this particular flag I will think you are hella racist.

crowsgirl15

I did not attach the image correctly, lol. This is what I was trying to show:

Sherbie25

It bothers me to say this, but the attitude and opinions I'm reading shed some light on how someone can associate with people who call children 'faggots' and say they should get a dildo.
People need to pull their head out of their arse and look around. 

monkeysip

Sherbie25 said:

It bothers me to say this, but the attitude and opinions I'm reading shed some light on how someone can associate with people who call children 'faggots' and say they should get a dildo.
People need to pull their head out of their arse and look around. 

In all fairness, I have some Facebook friends and some family members that say some pretty crazy stuff I would never agree with.  I don't purposefully choose to hang out with these people, but I don't unfriend most people in general (although I do unfollow quite a few of them) because I have a little hope that maybe I can influence them for the better.  I mean, there is a line they can cross, and calling people faggots would be one of them, but I still hope people don't judge me by some of the Facebook friends I choose to keep.

short+sassy

crowsgirl15 said:

I did not attach the image correctly, lol. This is what I was trying to show:

Not to be a contrarian, but ironically this tweet makes the point I was trying to make earlier.

If someone says, "Save the Rainforests", than YES, that EXACLTY implies to me that they care more about Rainforests than other ecological wonders.  Hence why a rainforest was specifically mentioned and not just the earth in general.

However it doesn't imply to me "Fuck All Other Types of Forests".  That's a made-up jump.  One can like and want to save all forests, but also have a particular yen for rainforests.

And that was essentially how I initially misunderstood the phrase "Black Lives Matter".  I didn't take it to mean that ONLY Black Lives Matter, but I did have the initial impression that Black Lives Matter "more", rather than "too", just in the specific circumstance of violent deaths.  Because all unwarranted officer shootings are a travesty and an equal travesty, regardless of the race of the victim.  So the focusing on one racial group, implied an invisible "more" at the end of the phrase (to me).

I'm not arguing that I was mistaken in my initial reaction.  Just trying to explain where it came from for me, since most people "got" what the true meaning was right off the get go.

SaintPaulGal

short+sassy said:

crowsgirl15 said:

I did not attach the image correctly, lol. This is what I was trying to show:

Not to be a contrarian, but ironically this tweet makes the point I was trying to make earlier.

If someone says, "Save the Rainforests", than YES, that EXACLTY implies to me that they care more about Rainforests than other ecological wonders.  Hence why a rainforest was specifically mentioned and not just the earth in general.

However it doesn't imply to me "Fuck All Other Types of Forests".  That's a made-up jump.  One can like and want to save all forests, but also have a particular yen for rainforests.

And that was essentially how I initially misunderstood the phrase "Black Lives Matter".  I didn't take it to mean that ONLY Black Lives Matter, but I did have the initial impression that Black Lives Matter "more", rather than "too", just in the specific circumstance of violent deaths.  Because all unwarranted officer shootings are a travesty and an equal travesty, regardless of the race of the victim.  So the focusing on one racial group, implied an invisible "more" at the end of the phrase (to me).

I'm not arguing that I was mistaken in my initial reaction.  Just trying to explain where it came from for me, since most people "got" what the true meaning was right off the get go.

But "save the rainforests ISN'T saying that rainforests are more important than other ecological wonders.  It is saying that rainforests are more imperiled than other ecological wonders.  "Save the rainforests": they are being cut down and nobody seems to be doing anything to stop it!  "Black lives matter": African-Americans are being shot across the nation and nobody seems to be doing anything to stop it.

Hence why we say "save the polar bears" and not "save the grizzly bears."  Polar bears are imperiled, grizzly bears aren't.  It's not a value judgement about the relative value of the bears.

spockforprez

Disclaimer: white lady here. From my first interactions with it, BLM to me has always been a sort of cry of deep desperation to humanize people who are dehumanized by the justice system and media coverage. I've never seen it as "BLACK lives matter," but as "black lives MATTER!" As in, wake up! These people being killed aren't animals or just faceless names but actual, real, living, breathing human beings who deserve the same rights as the white majority. Which everyone "knows" but is clearly not the reality. So the phrase and the movement exist because of that disconnect. It's becoming rarer to see out and out racists who proclaim their hate in public in plain, blatant words... but the insidious, hidden hate inside hearts as well as institutional racism and discrimination - that's why BLM exists. In my understanding.  

I deeply appreciate police officers - one of them saved my husband's life and I will never forget what he did. They have a dangerous, thankless job that involves great personal and family sacrifice which often goes unnoticed. Unfortunately there are bad people who are police officers and there is also corruption and both hidden and blatant racism within police organizations. You can desire reform of an institution while still having respect and gratitude for it - hell, there are a million and one things I'd change about America, but I still love being American and am grateful to have been born here. Dissent and criticism should not be barred from the conversation and that is what Blue Lives Matters does, IMO. Unless it's completely praiseworthy, it can't be discussed. Nothing will change if criticism cannot even be brought up.

Sherbie25

spockforprez said:

Disclaimer: white lady here. From my first interactions with it, BLM to me has always been a sort of cry of deep desperation to humanize people who are dehumanized by the justice system and media coverage. I've never seen it as "BLACK lives matter," but as "black lives MATTER!" As in, wake up! These people being killed aren't animals or just faceless names but actual, real, living, breathing human beings who deserve the same rights as the white majority. Which everyone "knows" but is clearly not the reality. So the phrase and the movement exist because of that disconnect. It's becoming rarer to see out and out racists who proclaim their hate in public in plain, blatant words... but the insidious, hidden hate inside hearts as well as institutional racism and discrimination - that's why BLM exists. In my understanding.  

I deeply appreciate police officers - one of them saved my husband's life and I will never forget what he did. They have a dangerous, thankless job that involves great personal and family sacrifice which often goes unnoticed. Unfortunately there are bad people who are police officers and there is also corruption and both hidden and blatant racism within police organizations. You can desire reform of an institution while still having respect and gratitude for it - hell, there are a million and one things I'd change about America, but I still love being American and am grateful to have been born here. Dissent and criticism should not be barred from the conversation and that is what Blue Lives Matters does, IMO. Unless it's completely praiseworthy, it can't be discussed. Nothing will change if criticism cannot even be brought up.

I wish I could love this more, thank you x