Mike Huckabee: MLK Would Be 'Appalled' By Black Lives Matter Movement...

Already Home_17 wrote: »

This implies that black people are the only ones who are ever unjustly killed by the police or in general and non-black victims don't need the representation because they don't or couldn't exist. 'All houses matter' could never justify prioritizing putting water on a house that doesn't need it over the one that does, it would justify putting out the fire of the one that's actually on fire because that house is covered under 'all houses matter'.

-continued

4. 'Black lives matter' places appropriate emphasis on the one group for whom the lives of its members seem not to matter -- or not to matter as the lives of other groups. This emphasis is appropriate for reasons along the lines mention in 1. above. We need to assert, clearly, that black lives matter, for it is black lives that distinctly seem not to matter to some people. This means that ALM fails to place appropriate emphasis. If this is true, then this is one reason to think that 'Black lives matter' is superior to 'All lives matter' as a slogan.

White people who unjustly ? white people don't care about their victim's lives and neither do black people who unjustly ? black people or Asians who murder Asian people, there is no societal consensus that black lives don't matter and I'm not entirely convinced that it's the general trend (if I'm wrong that shouldn't detract from my basic argument).

The emphasis is not necessary because it's covered under ALM. If ALM doesn't persuade white racists that black lives matter, I promise you, BLM will not.

There would only need to be an emphasis on black lives if black lives were particularly important and they're not. This would be true even if there is a general attitude that black lives matter less, even if black people were systematically discriminated against the way they were under slavery. 'All' means ALL, there's no ? around with that. At the risk of resorting to an ad hominem I suspect that you want there to be an emphasis because you view black people, as a 'group', as the 'underdog'. First, some non-black individuals can reasonably be considered underdogs, regardless of whether or not they represent the majority of their groups, and all black individuals aren't particularly vulnerable or pitiable. Second, even if every black person is an underdog in at least some respects, underdogs don't deserve more compassion. They may need more help, which can justify treating them specially, but not because they actually deserve more consideration. Some whites are killed when police exercise unnecessary force so underdog status should come on an individual basis.

5. But there is another reason to think that. Your claim seems to be that since 'All lives matter' logically includes black lives, anyone who asserts that ALM is committed to saying that black lives matter. If this point holds, then this is one reason to think that ALM is just as good as BLM


But it doesn't hold. Not only does ALM fail to place appropriate emphasis where that emphasis is due, we should question the wisdom of placing such confidence in the force of logical implication. I mean, after all, given people's other beliefs, they might be committed to believing in one thing without actually believing that thing -- for whatever psychological hangups they might have. And when the subject is race, we have plenty of reasons to be skeptical. I mean, we are talking about people who for centuries proclaimed belief in the idea that "All men are created equal," while very clearly acting in ways which suggested that some men were not created equal.

ALM isn't just as good as BLM, it's better for the reasons that I've mentioned. The emphasis would only be due if black lives were particularly important. Anyone who claims ALM and doesn't care about black people doesn't understand the concept of 'all'.

People are going to be hypocritical regardless of what principles they claim to hold or ideology they ascribe to. People who claim ALM aren't going to consistently practice that but people who claim BLM won't necessarily be consistent with this either.

6. White people who are killed by police are not, at least for the most part, killed because they are white, not even in part. So the existence of such people provide no reason to think that ALM is superior to 'Black lives matter' -- that is, their deaths do not suggest that white people's lives, qua white people, do not matter.

The racial aspect of a lot of police brutality cases is exaggerated, in my opinion. Again, even if you think I'm wrong that still doesn't detract from my argument because not even outright slaves deserved more or less compassion than their masters, let alone innocent white people who were also underdogs in other ways.

You say 'for the most part' like individuals and their problems don't matter if they don't belong to large, widely recognized groups among whom those problems are the norm. Killing someone because they're black is no worse than killing them because they have a large nose or because they're nerdy or there's something about them that doesn't tie them to a distinct , recognized group of people. Murder is murder. The reason why you give other people less consideration than you feel you deserve is irrelevant, you're wrong for not giving everyone equal consideration.

Listen bruh, you sound profoundly confused when the topic is race. You think of good questions to contemplate, but your reflections are obviously quite superficial. You really need to think much, much harder.

If my reasoning is flawed then it should be criticized but I haven't come across one argument so far that would lead me to believe favoring ALM over BLM contradicts the idea of genuine racial egalitarianism or that a rational minded person wouldn't necessarily be an egalitarian.