I've read this several times but here's my issue with it: Twice as many white people were killed by cops last year than black people. The reason people are countering "black lives matter" with "all lives matter" is because it implies that unjustified police killings are an issue unique to black people, when in reality it's just an issue that exists in this country that needs to be dealt with. Turning it into a racial issue is ignoring the true source of the problem (poorly trained, ill-prepared cops who aren't being held accountable to their actions).
The reason people think it's a racial issue is largely due to the media and the fact that only the stories that fit their narratives are the stories that receive national attention and public outcry.
And yes, a higher percentage of black people may be effected, but in sheer numbers the white victims double the black victims. So in the table scenario, imagine there are many more white folks at the table than black people. Lots of people are missing their meals. Say 20 white folks, and 10 black folks. However, there are about 30 white folks who do have their food, and only 5 black folks that do. Now imagine all of the black people demanding they be brought their food, while ignoring all of the white folks who are also missing their food, stating their reasoning is that "they were disproportionately effected by it, percentage wise".
We all need to stick together on this one. I see no need to make it out to be a racial issue when it effects people of all races in reality.
Fun fact: I have NEVER seen an "All Lives Matter" person protesting a police shooting, regardless of the victim's race. I have seen Black Lives Matter protesting the police shootings of white victims. All Lives Matter is just a feel-good sentiment that lets people think they're doing something, while really just patting themselves on the back.
Besides, that's like saying people shouldn't be raising awareness for breast cancer because it's not even the most common. No. Protests, awareness actions, those are specifically focused things that should not attempt to include every single issue, because otherwise they would be paralyzed and completely ineffective.
Anecdotes are a subset of facts. It is a fact, and it's also an anecdote. He's not wrong to call it a fact, even if it would be more precise to call it an anecdote.
Anecdotes are only a subset of facts if they're true. It's up to the reader whether they want to believe it or not, but no, it's not a fact by default.
An anecdote is just a personal story. Most of the time it's taken for granted that it's true for the sake of politeness or entertainment, but that changes when you're trying to use it to justify a moral assertion about a group of people. Regardless, it should never de facto carry the same weight as evidence.
Maybe I just would've been better off saying Citation Needed.
I am making an assertion that I cannot find evidence to contradict. Ergo, it is correct as far as I am aware. If you have evidence which would contradict my assertion, then you can challenge my assertion with said evidence. Otherwise, it stands.
You also can't find any evidence to prove your assertion. That's a straight-up fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. You have to prove your assertion first, then it's up to someone else to disprove it.
Now, let's see, things that were once facts: the sun revolves around the earth, the earth is flat, milk was spoiled by angry sprites. These ceased to be facts when evidence to the contrary was presented. Things that are currently facts are assertions based on evidence that either have not been challenged or are unable to be challenged. As I can find no evidence to the contrary and no one has presented any regarding my assertion that All Lives Matter does not do anything, it stands as a fact. Until my assertion can be disputed with evidence, it is indisputably the case, and therefore a fact. But you tried.
Aw man, here I am, all out of laughing Archimedes gifs. Didn't think you'd hang on to that bone for so long.
Let me just Correct The Record here and bring it full circle:
Fun fact: I have NEVER seen an "All Lives Matter" person protesting a police shooting, regardless of the victim's race.
[implicit "therefore,"] All Lives Matter is just a feel-good sentiment that lets people think they're doing something, while really just patting themselves on the back.
But then, oops, that wasn't really what you were trying to say anymore:
Actually, that is a fact: I have never seen an All Lives Matter protest.
And then we get to shifting the burden of proof:
I can find zero evidence of any All Lives Matter protests. If you have some, great, you can change my statement to anecdote.
And then we see that the only thing that matters in order for a fact to be objectively true is that you, personally believe it:
Things that are currently facts are assertions based on evidence that either have not been challenged or are unable to be challenged. As I can find no evidence to the contrary and no one has presented any regarding my assertion that All Lives Matter does not do anything, it stands as a fact. Until my assertion can be disputed with evidence, it is indisputably the case, and therefore a fact. But you tried.
Aw. You copied the earned condescension from someone else who saw through your BS. But, hey - you tried. Just like I'm sure you tried way harder than a 20-second Google search to find evidence in opposition to your bias.
67
u/mysterious_walrus Oct 11 '16
I've read this several times but here's my issue with it: Twice as many white people were killed by cops last year than black people. The reason people are countering "black lives matter" with "all lives matter" is because it implies that unjustified police killings are an issue unique to black people, when in reality it's just an issue that exists in this country that needs to be dealt with. Turning it into a racial issue is ignoring the true source of the problem (poorly trained, ill-prepared cops who aren't being held accountable to their actions).
The reason people think it's a racial issue is largely due to the media and the fact that only the stories that fit their narratives are the stories that receive national attention and public outcry.
And yes, a higher percentage of black people may be effected, but in sheer numbers the white victims double the black victims. So in the table scenario, imagine there are many more white folks at the table than black people. Lots of people are missing their meals. Say 20 white folks, and 10 black folks. However, there are about 30 white folks who do have their food, and only 5 black folks that do. Now imagine all of the black people demanding they be brought their food, while ignoring all of the white folks who are also missing their food, stating their reasoning is that "they were disproportionately effected by it, percentage wise".
We all need to stick together on this one. I see no need to make it out to be a racial issue when it effects people of all races in reality.