Um, nope it doesn’t. For example, a black person who lives in an affluent, low-crime area and adopts high-status signifiers such as wearing a suit-and-tie is extremely unlikely to be affected by police brutality. This is not to say that being black isn’t highly correlated with being victimized in this way, but the whole point of the previous comment is that correlation is not certainty, and there’s nothing ‘specific’ about it.
This is also why your criticism of the “All Lives Matter!” meme is rather off track—the whole notion that such things can “derail the discussion” is unproven and quite possibly meaningless. In all probability, it’s little more than what we here at Less Wrong would call a cached thought, or even more pointedly a semantic stopsign, or thought-terminating cliché.
I think there’s some miscommunication here regarding the quoted sentence. You used the phrase “Whichever Lives Are Most Affected By Police Brutality At The Moment”. I stated that this group, right now at the moment, is “black Americans”. I wouldn’t have thought you would disagree with that statement given that you said it was acceptable for “Black Lives” to be used as a “convenient shorthand” for WLAMABPBATM, and you’ve just reiterated that being black is highly correlated with being unfairly victimized. Where’s the disagreement here?
As regards “ALM”, the only argument you’ve advanced is that the idea that it can derail discussions may not be meaningful. So say I ceded that, for the sake of argument—though I don’t think you’ve actually demonstrated that it’s a semantic stopsign, etc. What are your responses to my other points? I’ll restate them clearly in case my previous comment was not sufficiently well-structured.
“All lives matter” adds nothing to the discourse.
“All lives matter”, as a response or counter to “Black Lives Matter” (which as far as I’ve seen is all it is), is an implied rebuke carrying a tacit accusation of unfairness.
As “Black Lives Matter” exists as a slogan specifically referring to the higher probability of unfair victimization at the hands of police faced by black people, “All Lives Matter” carries with it an implication that this higher probability is minimal, non-existant or unimportant.
If you can present an alternate explanation of why people say “All Lives Matter” as a response to “Black Lives Matter”, I’m perfectly willing to hear it.
Um, nope it doesn’t. For example, a black person who lives in an affluent, low-crime area and adopts high-status signifiers such as wearing a suit-and-tie is extremely unlikely to be affected by police brutality. This is not to say that being black isn’t highly correlated with being victimized in this way, but the whole point of the previous comment is that correlation is not certainty, and there’s nothing ‘specific’ about it.
This is also why your criticism of the “All Lives Matter!” meme is rather off track—the whole notion that such things can “derail the discussion” is unproven and quite possibly meaningless. In all probability, it’s little more than what we here at Less Wrong would call a cached thought, or even more pointedly a semantic stopsign, or thought-terminating cliché.
I think there’s some miscommunication here regarding the quoted sentence. You used the phrase “Whichever Lives Are Most Affected By Police Brutality At The Moment”. I stated that this group, right now at the moment, is “black Americans”. I wouldn’t have thought you would disagree with that statement given that you said it was acceptable for “Black Lives” to be used as a “convenient shorthand” for WLAMABPBATM, and you’ve just reiterated that being black is highly correlated with being unfairly victimized. Where’s the disagreement here?
As regards “ALM”, the only argument you’ve advanced is that the idea that it can derail discussions may not be meaningful. So say I ceded that, for the sake of argument—though I don’t think you’ve actually demonstrated that it’s a semantic stopsign, etc. What are your responses to my other points? I’ll restate them clearly in case my previous comment was not sufficiently well-structured.
“All lives matter” adds nothing to the discourse.
“All lives matter”, as a response or counter to “Black Lives Matter” (which as far as I’ve seen is all it is), is an implied rebuke carrying a tacit accusation of unfairness.
As “Black Lives Matter” exists as a slogan specifically referring to the higher probability of unfair victimization at the hands of police faced by black people, “All Lives Matter” carries with it an implication that this higher probability is minimal, non-existant or unimportant.
If you can present an alternate explanation of why people say “All Lives Matter” as a response to “Black Lives Matter”, I’m perfectly willing to hear it.