Taken from Reddit. “ELI5″ means “explain it like I’m 5″, and TL;DR means “too long; didn’t read” (a summary of a long post).
ExplainedELI5: Why is it so controversial when someone says “All Lives Matter” instead of “Black Lives Matter”? -submitted 22 hours ago by Bigred2989
Imagine that you’re sitting down to dinner with your family, and while everyone else gets a serving of the meal, you don’t get any. So you say “I should get my fair share.” And as a direct response to this, your dad corrects you, saying, “everyone should get their fair share.” Now, that’s a wonderful sentiment — indeed, everyone should, and that was kinda your point in the first place: that you should be a part of everyone, and you should get your fair share also. However, dad’s smart-ass comment just dismissed you and didn’t solve the problem that you still haven’t gotten any!
The problem is that the statement “I should get my fair share” had an implicit “too” at the end: “I should get my fair share, too, just like everyone else.” But your dad’s response treated your statement as though you meant “only I should get my fair share”, which clearly was not your intention. As a result, his statement that “everyone should get their fair share,” while true, only served to ignore the problem you were trying to point out.
That’s the situation of the “black lives matter” movement. Culture, laws, the arts, religion, and everyone else repeatedly suggest that all lives should matter. Clearly, that message already abounds in our society.
The problem is that, in practice, the world doesn’t work the way. You see the film Nightcrawler? You know the part where Renee Russo tells Jake Gyllenhal that she doesn’t want footage of a black or latino person dying, she wants news stories about affluent white people being killed? That’s not made up out of whole cloth — there is a news bias toward stories that the majority of the audience (who are white) can identify with. So when a young black man gets killed (prior to the recent police shootings), it’s generally not considered “news”, while a middle-aged white woman being killed is treated as news. And to a large degree, that is accurate — young black men are killed in significantly disproportionate numbers, which is why we don’t treat it as anything new. But the result is that, societally, we don’t pay as much attention to certain people’s deaths as we do to others. So, currently, we don’t treat all lives as though they matter equally.
Just like asking dad for your fair share, the phrase “black lives matter” also has an implicit “too” at the end: it’s saying that black lives should also matter. But responding to this by saying “all lives matter” is willfully going back to ignoring the problem. It’s a way of dismissing the statement by falsely suggesting that it means “only black lives matter,” when that is obviously not the case. And so saying “all lives matter” as a direct response to “black lives matter” is essentially saying that we should just go back to ignoring the problem.
TL;DR: The phrase “Black lives matter” carries an implicit “too” at the end; it’s saying that black lives should also matter. Saying “all lives matter” is dismissing the very problems that the phrase is trying to draw attention to.
I’m in the middle of training for a half marathon, but I did the Wildfire Half last year. I wanted to go again for fun.
Differences this year:
- Not really going for speed; the aim was to finish without hurting my training schedule.
- Bit of a breeze this year. Nice.
- I didn’t have my Camelback or my regular handheld bottle. Both of them need cleaning. The ~20 ounce bottle I bought along worked out mostly OK.
- Focused on salt intake, which helped a LOT. I feel pretty good, thanks to the judicious use of 4-5 Nuun tablets. Handed out a couple of tablets to two women I’d been sort of playing tag with most of the race…they were grateful. (They had matching shirts that said, “Unicorns are awesome. I am awesome. Therefore, I am a unicorn.” Go Team Unicorn!)
- The medal came with this cute little mini medal, like a charm for a bracelet. I like it.
So yes. Big fun. Oh, and this time I brought a whole change of clothes for after, and damn, does that help!
- Chip time 2:52:34 (last year, 2:40:07)
- Pace 13:10/mile (last year, 12:17/mile
- Overall 202/296 (last year, 264/436)
- Gender 102/165 (last year, 124/244)
Rules of drunkenness:
Don’t say things.
Don’t say anything online. For the love of God, don’t say anything online.
Don’t take anything off. Okay, maybe your jacket. No, not your shoes.
Don’t lie down on anything that’s not your bed. Seriously, stop talking. Stop texting. What did you just post?
Watch your typos.
Quit telling people you love them. Just stop.
No, you don’t need another glass. Eat something.
Okay, maybe one more glass. Just the one.
Keep your clothes on. Stand up. What are you, a toddler? Put your shoes back on.
This is your inner sober brain speaking, and I say seriously SHUT UP NO ONE CARES. They can all tell you’re drunk, too.
Did you say something else while I wasn’t looking? Oh god, what was it? Who was there? We’re going to have to file this away and feel bad forever, so what did you say?
That carpet DOES look kind of comfortable, now that I think about it. And lots of people like floors. Buddhists, for example. Love floors. Maybe we could be Buddhist tonight. Yeah?
Not sure we need another glass. Tasty wine, though.
I love that guy. Good guy, that.
I’m British now.
I love this carpet.
Where’s my drink.
Where’s my shows. Shows. Shoes.
Imma text them. I love those guys.
Many of us have bemoaned, will bemoan, are bemoaning the rudeness and downright hostility (and sometimes, violent vitriol) of random strangers on the internet.
I’m done bemoaning. I’m sick of it. Time to start pointing out the poison and refusing to take part.
This comes from an incident. A friend posted an article on FB yesterday that sparked some discussion. Let’s say that it was about, oh, let’s say, the epidemic of feeding tacos to turtles. (It wasn’t, but it’s a fine thing to talk about.) The discussion went something like this:
Person: “This article points out an awful lot of problems with feeding tacos to turtles, but doesn’t actually provide any solutions. If people want to feed tacos to their turtles, they should! The economy would crater if turtles couldn’t be fed tacos. Think of the Taco Bell employees on welfare… There’s just no point in trying to change the taco/turtle situation.” [The argument was more cogent than this, but again, it’ll do for now.]
Me: “As for solutions, just off the top of my head, how about feeding turtles other things, like lettuce or whatever? How about we move over to a carrot-based agricultural emphasis? These are just a couple of ideas. I don’t own a turtle, but I do eat tacos, so I’m just a regular consumer here, no expert. But there have to be alternatives, if the taco-turtle conundrum is really that bad (and it is).”
Person: “[Reasons why I’m wrong.] But you got one thing right; you’re definitely no expert.”
Me: “Well, that got a little hostile a little fast. I’m out.”
Person: “[Another snippy little attack comment.]”
Now, I really don’t have a problem with disagreements. Nor with being told I’m wrong. But I’m sick to allfire death of random ad hominem attacks in what should be a perfectly civil conversation. The topic wasn’t even all that controversial…which wouldn’t excuse the attacks, but it would at least make them more understandable. This is, to me, the equivalent of this:
Me: “Dang, Hokas sure are a delightful running shoe!”
Person: “You would say that, you foot-whore.”
Is that seriously what passes for acceptable? Remember, this wasn’t an actual random stranger; this was a friend of a (very kind and decent) friend. Is this what I can expect if I start attending cocktail parties again?
Yeah, I get it. Internet. Well, I’m done with it. I’m going to start modeling my behavior after a good friend, who – when unacceptable behavior happens in the vicinity – says “That is unacceptable,” and goes on to explain why.
Turning a discussion into an ad hominem attack is wrong, and unacceptable. Stop it.
P.S. I’m also getting sick of that tactic, “If you don’t suggest a solution then you’re wrong / don’t get to talk.” Pointing out the problems in a situation is perfectly acceptable, useful, and widely accepted in most if not all societies. Is there a name for this tactic? UPDATE: I am so happy!! I found what I think this is. This tactic is shifting the burden of proof, “A fallacy that challenges opponents to disprove a claim, rather than asking the person making the claim to defend his/her own argument.” At worst, it’s a variation of this; “You may not continue with your arguments without also providing solutions to the problems you raise” is DEFINITELY shifting the burden of proof. I’m so, so happy!
P.P.S. MW.com shows “ad homimen” first used in 1598. I like the idea that you’re not only illogical, but that your FORM of illogic has been recognized as stupid for over 400 years.
This is amazing. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that states can take the power of redistricting away from the people likely to rig that system in their own favor. What that means is, I hope, gerrymandering may soon* be a thing of the past.
Gerrymandering: one of the biggest, dirtiest, dishonest cheats in American politics. I never understood, even my school days, how such a thing could be allowed to continue. May it die quickly.
*”Soon” is relative.
New day, new idea about running schedules.
I’m in week 3 of a 17 week half-marathon training plan. It’ll finish up October 4. I had originally planned on taking several weeks “off” (just maintenance runs, basically) before starting on a marathon training plan, but, the Dallas Marathon is about 10 weeks after this cycle ends!
The Dallas Marathon was really cool.
I want to do it again.
Therefore, the new training plan is this:
- Half marathon training as planned, ending Oct 4.
- Two weeks downtime / recovery time, mostly easy runs and whatnot.
- Eight weeks marathon training.
- Dallas Marathon December 13!
I want to do the marathon, even if I have to do a walk/run due to not enough training.
So, thoughts and comments?
We talked about guns on Twitter. And a very-pro-gun friend chimed in with a link to an article. Here’s my response to the first part of the article, which is longer than route 66 on a hot day when you’re on foot.
“…tragedy on the news that can be milked.”
This already puts me off. When there’s a tragedy on the TV, I personally don’t “milk” it for anything. I have an honest, upset reaction. And I form opinions about what happened, based on what I know about the even. I don’t “milk” jack shit. So we’ll assume the author meant politicians and TV personalities with the “milked” thing, and not any old “anti-gun person”, which was the group of people mentioned in the previous sentence.
“When I hear people tell me the gun industry is unregulated, I have to resist the urge to laugh in their face.”
I can see how that would be for a person who owned a gun store that dealt in machine guns, supresors, and “everything except for explosives”. I wouldn’t say the industry is unregulated. I would say that it’s far too easy to get guns, and there are far too powerful guns on the open market.
“I have certified thousands of people to carry guns.”
In Texas, at least, one does need a certification to carry a gun, but none to buy one. Or, you know, a dozen. While I do have concerns with “normal” folk buying guns by the barrelfull, I’m at present more concerned with the folks who have a criminal history, warrants, restraining orders, crazy freaking manifestos, and the like buying guns.
“Basically for most of my adult life, I have been up to my eyeballs in guns, self-defense instruction, and the laws relating to those things.”
I can totally respect that. Good, you’re educated about guns. I would like to point out that this person has no actual experience in law enforcement, military engagements, or immediate shooting hazards of any kind. There’s a difference between extensive classroom study, and oh-shit-here-it-comes situations. To be fair, neither do I, but I’m also not making the case to be an expert in all things guns. I’m just another asshole citizen with opinions. But my opinions matter, too…I live in this place.
“Until this national conversation is willing to entertain allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons, then it isn’t a conversation at all, it is a lecture.”
Well, that’s complete bullshit. That’s up there with “Until we’re willing to entertain allowing me to bang your sister, then this isn’t a conversation about commitment at all.” I mean, sure, you can refuse to come to the table. But then it’s you preventing the conversation.
As a side note, if “The single best way to respond to a mass shooter is with an immediate, violent response,” then why don’t we start arming teachers with tasers? At the very least, a trigger-happy teacher with a taser is far less likely to acidentally kill one of his charges. And, an asshole high school kid that jimmies the teacher’s desk will get an article of mayhem, not one of death.
“The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5.”
I’d like to see the source of these statistcs, please.
“Worst case scenario, the armed staff provides a distraction, and while he’s concentrating on killing them, he’s not killing more children.”
No, worst case scenario likely happens when there’s no terrorist in the building. It’s the misuse of the gun. It’s the teacher that threatens the kids, loses the gun, doesn’t lock it up properly. Do you really trust every single teacher in the united states to be responsible AND a good person AND patient as hell? I don’t. They’re people, and they’re specifically in charge of kids.
You’re trading the rare threat of a school shooting for the day-to-day danger of guns in schools. (You know what I mean by rare: there are a handful of mass shootings per year. Those are horrible, but I do not expect my kids’ schools to have a shooting any time in the next 10 years.) Politifact article about shootings: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jun/13/everytown-gun-safety/have-there-been-74-school-shootings-sandy-hook-clo/
“The teacher doesn’t need to be a SWAT cop or Navy SEAL. They need to be speed bumps.”
Here the author may begin addressing some of the things I’ve said. (No, I don’t expect I’ve said anything new. I’m just explaining my position.)
“Don’t make it mandatory” for teachers to carry guns. Well, duh, I didn’t figure anyone would.
“Then they’ll say that this is impossible, and give me all sorts of terrible worst case scenarios about all of the horrors that will happen with a gun in the classroom… No problem, because this has happened before.” So it’s okay, because it’s already happening? This is completely ridiculous.
“Permit holders are not cops. The mistake many people make is that they think permit holders are supposed to be cops or junior danger rangers. Not at all. Their only responsibility is simple. If someone is threatening to cause them or a third person serious bodily harm, and that someone has the ability, opportunity, and is acting in a manner which suggest they are a legitimate threat, then that permit holder is allowed to use lethal force against them.”
Man, if only it were as simple as in the movies. I get that the cases of guys walking into schools with guns are pretty clear cut. Unless, you know, a scared shitless armed citizen peeks out of their class doorway and shoots someone running at the far end of the hall. Or they take aim at the shooter and hit a couple of kids running away behind him. And so on.
BTW, a quick google turns up several articles like this one from Mother Jones, about how seldom armed (armed, non-military, non-police) citizens actually make a difference in shooting situations: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings
Holy crap, we’re just now to “gun free zones”. I have to go do work now…