Amina Sopwith

I had an old friend who spent some time in a Gor sim. He wished for a meteorite.

Sukubia, obviously the virus must be respected and taken seriously, and I am not trivialising it, but the majority of people who contract it do recover, and that's just those who even catch it. And again, not to trivialise anything you've been through, but you're still here so none of those past horrors have got you. My uncle has a number of medical conditions, he's shielding and is vulnerable, and has been going to hospital regularly. He is ill but he is as well as he can be and hasn't got the virus. Hang in there and look after yourself. We have got your back.

By the time lockdown is over, I think I'll be able to sell advertising space on my bum. Or maybe rent it out to an outdoor film screening company.

Condemned prisoner.

You know better than that!

Ok... I like and respect you very much, and I hope I can communicate that that's why I'm going to leave this particular discussion here. I'm not worried that I'll say something nasty to you because there's no chance of that. I'm just worried that you already feel quite bad, and I don't want to take any risks.

It would appear that some SL residents just want to watch the world burn....

Well look...if literally all you are saying is "all lives matter, all humans are equal" then obviously I agree. This thread, though, is dedicated to a more complex argument than that and a more insidious use of those words. If I've missed the point and you're not trying to participate in that particular discussion, then I'm quite happy to park it here because, well, there isn't really a discussion to be had. But I would very respectfully remind you that in discussions about the BLM movement and related issues, the words "all lives matter" carry a significance and meaning that they wouldn't if we were just sitting round a campfire amongst friends and singing Kum Ba Ya. I would absolutely agree with change for all because racism against minorities isn't going to be reduced until, well, we do all make changes. That, too, is largely the point of the BLM movement; hard to see how we can form a solution that doesn't affect everyone (and, ultimately, benefit everyone too). And we also need to be careful, in our admirable quest to bring about change that benefits everyone, not to lose sight of the fact that as things stand right now, some demographics are in more immediate and serious danger than others and therefore need more attention.

Whoa...I certainly said nothing about brain damage. If you came on here to say only that all lives matter, lower case, nobody would disagree. And I'm sure we all know that you are 100% not a racist. But to use the mountain paths analogy: no, we are not all heading up the mountain. The ALM expedition, in fact, exists purely to cause a detour around the mountain. I'm sure that many ALM supporters are very well-intentioned and don't realise that, or don't realise they are detouring, or think the detour is the true path. But that doesn't change the fact that they are detouring, and that's what their leaders set out to do. Countering a Black Lives Matter campaign, in the circumstances of the current and longstanding climate, with an All Lives Matter one is to state that there is a difference between the two; in other words, that it's not what BLM believes, and to discredit and delegitimise it. But it's hard to see how anyone who truly believes that all lives matter equally could have an objection to a movement that calls to correct things when it's clear that black lives are being treated as if they don't matter. This is obviously a hard sell since most people do indeed believe that all lives matter, but delegitimising the BLM movement in this way does seem to work. We've seen people saying it on here, claiming that it's calling for some lives to matter more than others. One person even said something along the lines of 'oh, are we going to have to talk about racism forever', which shocked me more than I tried to let on, as I am not actually trying to cause an inferno here. Honest. I do agree that it's more complex than slogans, but slogans are how you initially draw people in and grab attention in the first instance, and whoa, ALM has managed that extremely well. Because, well, you can't argue against that, can you? But look at it closer, as you rightly urge people to do, and it's pretty obvious what's going on. As before: of course the problem is not "all lives matter". The problem is a movement that makes the claim to imply that the other guys are saying the complete opposite, and to try to dilute and deflect from the real, serious racism problem that they're addressing.

It's not what I said, although to be fair I made this point mostly in earlier posts that will have been drowned out by now. I am aware, and have explicitly stated, that well-intentioned people can most certainly be drawn into this position because, well, "all lives matter" - who can argue with that, right? But at its core, the actual argument itself is fallacious and exists to deflect from the fact that the black lives are where the focus is currently needed. If nothing else, we know this because it doesn't come up until Black Lives Matter - which, I have already explained, absolutely does NOT mean that other lives don't - makes its presence known. Obviously they make it sound sweet and easy and moral; that's how you get recruits. All Lives Matter! How could anyone disagree? (Nobody does!) Lillith took offence at the cartoon because she thought it was an attack on her personally. I explained that it was not: it was an attack on the reasoning behind the campaign and the arguments that are so often given in its favour (and which have been used on here too). But the campaign, at its core, DOES exist as pure deflection, as evidenced by the fact that it never existed in its own right and doesn't turn up until there's a breast cancer fundraiser (I read your comments on this but I think it still holds as an analogy). I am happy to repeat that this certainly does NOT mean that every person who supports ALM is bad or doesn't care about racism, but I would repeat that such people are misguided as to the actual reasoning and intention behind the campaign. The very fact that so many of them keep saying, "Well, I'M not racist, I judge everyone on merit!" as if this is in any way the point is kind of telling. The problem isn't whether one is personally a racist or not. The problem is in being complicit in drowning out calls to protect the people who need it most, even if one honestly believes it's the right thing to do. I'm trying to explain why that is.

The thing is, they never feel a need to cry that all lives matter until it becomes overwhelmingly obvious that black lives are being treated as if they don't...and campaigns are made to that effect. It's pure deflection. If a woman dies of breast cancer, and a breast cancer fundraiser is held in her memory, one wouldn't crash it to complain that all cancers matter.

Another poster effectively accused me of making a facile and oversimplified argument that I definitely didn't posit. Unwisely, I responded with a slightly sarcastic "do my posts suggest that?" reply. I should of course have just left it because a) my posts stood for themselves and b) it was already clear from this person's previous contributions what level of discussion I could expect. Obviously, said poster responded with "YES THEY DO LOL" and I'm annoyed with myself that I rose to it, especially since I already knew it wasn't going to be any better than that. I absolutely stand by the cartoon. Sorry for the detour, everyone. As you were.

I didn't retract it....?

Thanks. I'm annoyed with myself for rising to such absolutely playground level bait, though. This subject is too important for that and it was unworthy.

Looking back over my posts, I can see acknowledgement that well-intentioned people can be drawn into a poorly-intentioned movement, a deconstruction of the simplistic fallacy that enables this, a recognition that being white does not mean you have no problems, and an understanding that black people, at a class level, experience systemic harm to greater degree than white people, at a class level. However, I also looked back over your posts, and I would agree that my writing and critical thinking skills are not at the same standards as yours.

Do my posts suggest that I haven't grasped this?

At its core, it's addressing a problem that exists. ALM, at its core, is attempting to deflect from this problem.

That's because it's a criticism of the reasoning behind the movement, which I also do not believe is well-intentioned at its core. These are pretty much exactly what most of the arguments that I have heard for it have come to. ("You're saying white lives don't matter! You're saying white people have perfect lives and no problems that need addressing!" And all the rest of it.) The movement may well recruit people who are well-intentioned and just can't see past the simplistic "all lives matter!" call, which I hope I deconstructed well enough in my previous post. This cartoon is intended, in part, to explain to those people precisely why Black Lives Matter does not mean, and has never meant, that not all lives matter. And yet these are indeed the arguments that are so frequently used in the All Lives Matter counter-point. As long as there's racism in the world, yes, I think we should be attempting to address it. I don't think anyone's suggested we will ever reach a perfect world but how many black men should have their necks knelt on before we decide it's a problem? No, it's not. When people are being targeted for their race or their sexuality, it is not enough that you personally don't judge people for that, however admirable that makes you. The point is that other people do care, and systemic harm is coming to certain demographics of people based on those characteristics. If your response is to dilute and deflect that, or to say that it's not an issue because you're personally not racist or homophobic, or to complain about there being ongoing discourse about racism, then yes, you're part of the problem.

What would you say it is?

I suppose my feeling is that the people who are ultimately behind All Lives Matter (which is not to include everyone who has been drawn in by it) do not have good intentions. Or that a lot of well-intentioned people are falling for fallacious arguments.

That is precisely what the cartoon (which is not about the riots) is saying. It explicitly acknowledges that yes, all houses (lives) do matter. And it also explicitly acknowledges that no, this does not mean that just because a house (life) isn't on fire means that it has no problems that need to be addressed (dry rot). But the point is that black lives are the ones that are depreciated and neglected and need help the most right now, because they are ON FIRE. The dry rot is an issue, but it is not as pressing and immediate as the FIRE, which is KILLING SOMEONE RIGHT NOW. And it also explicitly acknowledges that should the other house catch fire, yes, it will be as deserving of immediate focus as the house that is on fire RIGHT NOW. But it's not. The point, in other words, is not that we are saying Black Lives Matter because we think white lives inherently matter less. (Square 5 in the cartoon.) This is the total fallacy that the All Lives Matter counter-argument rests on. The point is that it's black lives that are, at a class level, under greater threat from authorities. Therefore, that is where we should be focusing. If we lived in a mainly black society, where white people were disproportionately disenfranchised and killed as a result, then yes, we could have a White Lives Matter campaign. But at a class level, that is not where we're at. We are not saying "Black Lives Matter" because they are black. We are saying "Black Lives Matter" because it is clear that at a systemic level, they are being treated as though they do not. The problem with "All Lives Matter" as a counter-point is not that it is morally or philosophically wrong at its most basic level (that's why they do it; so that people can make that exact fallacious argument, because of course nobody can argue that not all lives matter.). It's that it is a deflection and a dilution of the more pressing and immediate problem of black lives being under attack. That is the point of it.

And yet...

It helps to acknowledge its existence, though, and that's hard to do when one insists from the off that one "doesn't see colour" or whatever. The point is, others do and are using it for evil ends. Nobody should be so colour blind that they can't see THAT.

It's that old story about the guy who sits at the gates of the city to greet people as they enter. One day a man comes along and asks what the people here are like. The greeter asks: "What are they like back in your home city?" The visitor replies: "They're wonderful! Kind, generous, good-spirited, lovely people." The greeter says, "I think you'll find they're the same here too." A little later, another man comes along and asks what the people here are like. Again, the greeter asks what they were like in his home city. The stranger replies: "They're awful! Selfish, self-centred, nasty, just horrible." And of course, the greeter says: "I think you'll find they're the same here too." Not a perfect analogy, of course, as there are pockets of places with a particular culture, but as an overall metaphor for life I think it usually works. There's also the little sparrow who flies from tree to tree all day to find a place to build a nest, rejecting each one. He finally reaches the tree of the wise old owl, who asks him why he hasn't found a good tree yet when he's been looking all day. The sparrow answers: "I can't help it! Every single tree has the most horrible smell, I can't put up with it. It's unbearable." And the wise old owl replies: "Have you thought that maybe it isn't the trees?"