The implications of "All Lives Matter"

Post Reply New Topic

It's clear that when people say "all lives matter", they leave out certain groups (ex: people with disabilities, POC, LGTBQ+ community).

My question today is based off what I've seen lately: What implications, if any, are there behind the use of the phrase "all lives matter"? In other words, what are the philosophical and psychological overtones of the way people use the phrase? I want to look a little beyond the obvious today and see what truly lies beneath the surface.

I would say the general motive is that they're offended by the statement black lives matters and hoping to distract and dilute from that message. I'm sure you've noticed it comes from certain political blocs more than others and often is spoken alongside arguments that contribute to diluting from concern about police brutality against poc as well.

Evidence, please?"All" = inclusion, implies "every".
"Lives" = plural of life, implies "living beings".
"Matter" = importance, significance.
"All lives matter" = "Every living thing is significant".Objectively: None.
Subjectively: Perception depends on both external context and internal reaction to previous experience.Three little words.  No further meaning.  Objective definitions only.

In my opinion, you are reading too much into the phrase "All Lives Matter" -- much more than is actually expressed by the established definitions of the words themselves.  "All Lives Matter" has been declared by some to be racist, sexist, and even a call to social rebellion.  It is none of these.  It is only a statement of ethics.  Nothing more.

I saw a good analogy for why "all lives matter" doesn't work.

If a black person's house is on fire and they want a fire truck then its like a white person on the same street saying "why should they get a fire truck when my house matters also?"

Black person says "but your house is not on fire? mine is?"

White person replies "Yeah but why should your house get the attention when my house matters also"

Black person says "but hang on, your house is fine? mine is on fire??"

etc etc...

You mean this one?

Perfect

The point is, though, that saying "black" lives matter can be seen as "racist" in that it is singling out a specific "racial group" for different treatment, ignoring other racial groups such as "latino", for example.

"All lives matter", however, covers people of all backgrounds equally, rather than excluding groups on racial reasons.

Targetting "police brutality" based on the "race" of the victim, rather than ignoring their "race" and focussing on the violence itself, implies that the supporters of this group may potentially condone violence against other racial groups (or at least gives this appearance), just not THIS one.

The reason that one side focuses on "Black" lives matter, while the other focuses on "All" lives matter would come down to one side (in general) breaking down communities into groups based on the race of the members, whilst the other (in general) focuses on the community as a whole.

"'ABC' Lives Matter" implies that ONLY the lives of 'ABCs' matter.

"All Lives Matter" declares that ALL lives matter, not just the 'ABCs'.

That it has been mis-used by the MAGA-hat crowd, and that some people have accepted this perverse meaning, leads me to wonder why it is so easy to turn an ethical statement into something ugly.

What next?  Will "I love you" get twisted into meaning something hideous and cruel as well?

Last edited by Fnord on 30 Jun 2020, 8:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

saying that all lives matter when someone says black lives matter is just telling someone that they are being racist as they are explaining that they face systemic racism, it is not helpful. Rather than saying that all lives matter should replace black lives matter, of which a good deal of people who use it do, the first should be an umbrella that supports the second. This unfortunately is not the case as you either have people who feel uncomfortable when hearing that people of another race have been victims of systemic racism despite racism supposedly have ending, or the rare type of virtue signalling that want to make themselves look evolved and tell white people like Fox News viewers what they want to hear.

The concept of saying all lives matter is not a bad one, it is just used by a lot of bad actors that don't want to do anything about the problem.

And lets not even get into things like a black man being killed by a cop that was not a threat, and after people protest with black lives matter you see people start saying that blue lives matter, as if the police officer was actually at threat if they did not shoot and the BLM protest is saying the cops don't. Especially when considering that it is pretty proven that a lot of cops smudge their reports by making up facts that that the man shot in the back was a threat. Or saying that the scrawny guy that played the violin at animal shelters somehow had super strength as he was begging that he does not even hurt a fly.

And a lot of potentially good actors who get shut down for being racist when they are not.

I used to get involved in non-white, non-male, and non-binary causes; but after being accused multiple times of being racist, sexist, and just plain bigoted, I stopped getting involved.

When people constantly attack you for your skin color, sex, and/or gender, the only sensible thing to do is to get away and stay away from those people.

It should be this simple.

Black lives matter.

White lives matter.

All others’ lives matter.

All lives matter.

Sorry, but I think that's a stupid analogy.

It would make more sense and be more believable if both houses were on fire and the white person demanded to have their house attended to and have the fire department completely ignore the black person's house and let it burn.

The analogy you've given isn't a good one because no one would whine for attention from the fire department unless their house was on fire.

Are we supposed to pretend that police brutality isn't far more likely to impact the black community? Should a group started by three black women change it's name just because the name makes some racists uncomfortable?

Sorry, but it's sad (not "sad" as in pathetic, but sad is in lamentable) that there are people out there that believe that if someone says and believes that all lives matter that it's actually some sort of intentional "dog whistle" and the person is a racist and is signaling to other racists. If a person literally believed that every person who says and believes "all lives matter" is racist and is using that phrase as an intentional dog whistle, such a person would be delusional.

The "all lives matter" vs. "black lives matter" is a tremendous example of differing perspectives, of differing points of view.

I believe it can be said with certainty that a large number of people who truly believe that all lives matter are saying and believing it with the aspiration of being inclusive and also a goal of harmony among all people. That's what I believe and hope for.

If there are people out there that say "all lives matter" but really to them it means "You (black people) are no more important that me (white person/people), I'd say that's a stretch to say such a person is racist because if the person really was a racist (ie really didn't think black people's lives were as important as the lives of white people, they'd be hypocritical and would actually be declaring that black people are as important as white people by saying "all lives matter". I don't see that happening from such a person.

A misogynist isn't going to say: "I think there should be equal pay for both sexes." if they think the opposite. Not going to happen.

A homophobic person isn't going to say: "I think gay people should be allowed to marry." if they think the opposite. Not going to happen.

A racist isn't going to to say "All lives matter" if they think the opposite. Not going to happen.

I do see how the differing points of view go both ways:

People who are offended by "all lives matter" because they believe the person saying it actually believes the opposite.

People who don't want to or refuse to say "black lives matter" in lieu of "all lives matter" don't want to because they think saying "black lives matter" is an exclusionary declaration (ie onlyblack lives matter) which I don't think most BLM supporting people believe save for extremists.

Last edited by Magna on 30 Jun 2020, 8:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.

The main issue I've seen with "all lives matter" is that it's consistently used as a dismissal towards the experiences of black people and the violence that is directed towards them. When people say "black lives matter" they're not saying "only black lives matter", they mean "black lives matter, too". People are misconstruing that and framing it wrong, often by willful ignorance.

What I don't appreciate though is when "black lives matter" takes automatic priority over other minorities, like the issues trans people and autistic people face. The burning house analogy doesn't entirely sit well with me due to the fact I've seen people use that to dismiss focusing on those other issues. "Well, this one house is burning, so why would you pay attention to the other houses?" Honestly, not only one house is burning and needs attention. The entire damn neighbourhood is on fire and you can, and should, focus on multiple houses at once.

This is especially true regarding the police and violence. You can put out that one house, but the fire is going to just spread back to it if you don't put out the other fires. Of course black people getting disproportionately killed by police needs to be focused on, but the type of people who are causing this violence in the first place are often just power hungry pieces of crap who would do this to anyone else. Even after you take out the racial issues that piece of crap cop isn't gonna care when all he really wants to do is beat or shoot someone, he's not gonna care if that person is black and black people are going to continue to die at the hands of police until the entire issue is addressed.

So the barrel was contaminated by a few bad apples? Do you think that is the exact same reason why those part of BLM protest against a good deal of the police force and against those who do "All Lives Matter", because they are a place that actual racist would use to downplay the complaints people have against black communities?

I am curious about your involvement in things like non-binary causes, I am not too familiar with many causes that are available.

But actually using LGBT as a transition, I think that can be a good analogues. Pride is something generally that focuses on those part of LGBT+, with parades and the like aimed at telling such people that they should be proud of who they are despite being minorities. Some strange responses have had people try and do "Straight Pride", because apparently LGBT+ pride is somehow shaming them, so they try and do their own thing. Which if you look at it is really kind of sad as rather than being inclusive pride, it is more of a vehicle to attack LGBT people. Maybe they will even just use the flag of the state to imply that it is they are the normal one.

LGBT pride is not saying that straight people should not be proud for who they are, just that LGBT people should be proud too in the face of the discrimination they face.