Free AI web copilot to create summaries, insights and extended knowledge, download it at here

Abstract

y do. Again, what does it have to do with saying BLM?</p><p id="1352">The irony, of course, is that no one seems to have told the people who make that statement, that they should be saying ‘All Lives Matter’.</p><p id="90f7">I have had friends among the police ranks and I have great respect for the officers who put their lives in danger when enforcing the law. Their lives do matter. But why bring that in as a counterpoint to BLM?</p><p id="64f7">Also, there is a significant difference between an officer putting his or her life on the line performing their duty and citizens whose lives are in jeopardy simply based on the color of their skin.</p><p id="452c">I do not mean that all police officers or the general population are biased. I strongly believe that they are not. But there is enough evidence to show that some of them are and that their actions have had drastic results.</p><h2 id="8184">Stands By Itself</h2><p id="d186">Why these reactions then? It’s not as if anyone had said “Only Black Lives Matter”. And if they did, they would be wrong. Yet the visceral reaction to BLM among many who I would consider as regular folks is so strong that it actually is puzzling.</p><p id="09a2">Why can’t a group of people, who truly are affected by how they have been and continue to be treated, simply say that their lives matter? Without needing to be told that they have to express generic or other statements. Especially when those sentiments are not the point of a rallying cry.</p><p id="c343">On a simple order, if a statement stands on its own merit, then it does not need to be replaced by a generalized statement.</p><h2 id="7f84">An Example</h2><p id="8343">As an example, if someone says tigers should be protected as they are endangered, no one would counter by saying that al

Options

l animals should be protected. Or that another group such as snow leopards should also be protected. It is because we intrinsically understand that saying tigers should be protected is a valid sentiment in itself and does not preclude any other similar sentiments or requires an all-encompassing thought.</p><p id="04d2">About the only time this would matter is if the protection of one causes the destruction of another. When there is no such correlation, a specific statement should suffice.</p><h2 id="1593">A Facebook Incident</h2><p id="4862">I am part of a Facebook group which is about art and photography. There has not been much talk in it in the past about politics and social situations. The biggest controversies to date might have been about plagiarism and whether a photoshopped image can be considered a real photograph.</p><p id="9116">Then someone posted an image with a BLM theme. It was just an artistic expression by an individual. Yet in a group meant for art, it elicited only a mild response about the quality of the picture, but a very strong one on everything else.</p><p id="1777">Sharp lines were drawn and angry statements were made. To the extent, that the poster finally took down the image he had created and shared.</p><p id="17db">We seem to have reached such a strong opinion basis, that we, not the politicians, are threatening our own freedom of speech, writing, and art.</p><h2 id="24f9">Conclusion</h2><p id="0b9d">None of this condones any violence or rioting that has happened. Or opportunists politicizing it.</p><p id="86ff">But if someone sees a connection between a statement and an effect that is not desired by it, and gets bothered, then they are reaching an untenable position based on a secondary effect than the primary motive.</p></article></body>

Black Lives Matter

The Motivation To Replace BLM With Other Words

None. It stands on its own.

There has been plenty discussed about the ‘Black Lives Matter’ (#BLM) movement, the issues surrounding it, and the consequences. In this post, I am only going to talk about the reactions I have seen it trigger among many people, some of whom are my friends. And a situation that happened recently in a Facebook group in which I am a member.

All Lives Matter

When people see the tag BLM, it causes quite a reaction — positive and negative.

One of them is to say ‘All Lives Matter’. Of course, it does. All lives do matter. Life is precious and every life should be treated equally and protected equally — whether through the law or our own social constructs.

But why this response to BLM?

It looks like people who react like this are not seeing the phrase on its merit alone, but in the context of whatever has happened around it. There may have been violence, rioting, etc surrounding it — but those were triggered by either anti-social elements, opportunists, or long-buried feelings and situations that flared up. None of which negates the BLM phrase which stands on its own.

Police Lives Matter

The other statement I have seen is ‘Police Lives Matter’. Absolutely they do. Again, what does it have to do with saying BLM?

The irony, of course, is that no one seems to have told the people who make that statement, that they should be saying ‘All Lives Matter’.

I have had friends among the police ranks and I have great respect for the officers who put their lives in danger when enforcing the law. Their lives do matter. But why bring that in as a counterpoint to BLM?

Also, there is a significant difference between an officer putting his or her life on the line performing their duty and citizens whose lives are in jeopardy simply based on the color of their skin.

I do not mean that all police officers or the general population are biased. I strongly believe that they are not. But there is enough evidence to show that some of them are and that their actions have had drastic results.

Stands By Itself

Why these reactions then? It’s not as if anyone had said “Only Black Lives Matter”. And if they did, they would be wrong. Yet the visceral reaction to BLM among many who I would consider as regular folks is so strong that it actually is puzzling.

Why can’t a group of people, who truly are affected by how they have been and continue to be treated, simply say that their lives matter? Without needing to be told that they have to express generic or other statements. Especially when those sentiments are not the point of a rallying cry.

On a simple order, if a statement stands on its own merit, then it does not need to be replaced by a generalized statement.

An Example

As an example, if someone says tigers should be protected as they are endangered, no one would counter by saying that all animals should be protected. Or that another group such as snow leopards should also be protected. It is because we intrinsically understand that saying tigers should be protected is a valid sentiment in itself and does not preclude any other similar sentiments or requires an all-encompassing thought.

About the only time this would matter is if the protection of one causes the destruction of another. When there is no such correlation, a specific statement should suffice.

A Facebook Incident

I am part of a Facebook group which is about art and photography. There has not been much talk in it in the past about politics and social situations. The biggest controversies to date might have been about plagiarism and whether a photoshopped image can be considered a real photograph.

Then someone posted an image with a BLM theme. It was just an artistic expression by an individual. Yet in a group meant for art, it elicited only a mild response about the quality of the picture, but a very strong one on everything else.

Sharp lines were drawn and angry statements were made. To the extent, that the poster finally took down the image he had created and shared.

We seem to have reached such a strong opinion basis, that we, not the politicians, are threatening our own freedom of speech, writing, and art.

Conclusion

None of this condones any violence or rioting that has happened. Or opportunists politicizing it.

But if someone sees a connection between a statement and an effect that is not desired by it, and gets bothered, then they are reaching an untenable position based on a secondary effect than the primary motive.