>(and not that it matters, but the victim was white)
If BLM wanted to add legitimacy to their cause, especially to those on the fence, they would raise awareness to these non-black deaths in the same way that they do when it's black deaths. Standing against unjustified police violence against any person is not at all against the "black lives matter" premise. In fact, speaking up about it would help people relate to their cause. But, for one reason or another, they seem to stay relatively silent.
I carefully chose the words "relatively silent." As in, relative to when the victim is black. I don't see how anyone can argue that it's anywhere near the same level of intensity for non-black vs black.
Yes, to their own disadvantage. My argument is that they would persuade many more people to their cause. Is your argument that they shouldn't do that, or that you don't think it would work?
If you think you can do better than the activists for a given cause, I suggest you get out there and do it so we can see the superiority of your position. Otherwise, I think it's basically the same as armchair quarterbacking: people who have less expertise and no stake acting as if they know better than the people deeply involved in the problem.
We're having a discussion, and I asked a fairly direct question. If your response is to stop the discussion because you think no one is qualified here to discuss it, then you are welcome to not participate.
I'm not saying you can't discuss the topic. I'm saying that this particular argument is based in false assumptions, and is anyway moot. Pointing out the sterility of this line of discussion is me participating in the discussion, thanks.
Your response was roughly "if you think you know better, go out there and show us how superior your way is." It was condescending and, from my read, doesn't highlight any false assumptions.
Or, a group focused on accusations of racism would choose to cherry-pick incidents to give the perception of racism, and diverting attention away from incidents that might dispel this perception.
The cause isn't "stop police violence", it's stop systemic racism within the police forces of the USA. Police violence disproportionally affecting black people is a symptom of that systemic racism.
Disproportionately relative to what? Their share of the population, or their share of violent crime*?
*The usual trick is to claim police bias makes measuring violent crime impossible. But if one is not motivated to remain ignorant, there are a few ways to get bias-free statistics anyway. One is victim surveys, that don't involve the police at all. The other is using homicide as a gauge for other crime. Since it requires a dead body, and is mostly intra-racial, there's very little possibility or motivation to fudge these numbers.
It's amusing how you think that American cops need any crime, let alone violent crime, in order to to exact violence and death upon citizens. You must be white.
What does "need" have to do with it? The logic is more violent crime -> more police interactions -> more chances for an incident to occur. Outlier incidents do not disprove the broad statistics you had no issue in invoking before.
I recall when the Daniel Shaver murder happened, a lot of the same people who now criticize BLM were criticizing Shaver for not listening to the police, or saying he deserved what happened to him, and objected to the idea of police brutality existing at all.
Wrt Daniel Shaver, from my experience, most people that I know just didn't care very much. It's sad, it shouldn't have gone down like that (much like many other instances), but at the end of the day, there's only so much emotional bandwidth to spend, and it can't all be allocated on everything at the same time.
I chose my words carefully to say, not that it "isn't happening", but that it isn't happening at anywhere near the same level. If you're going to suggest that I "look stupid", please accurately represent the argument that I "look stupid" about.
Would you make a similar argument to people trying to raise awareness of and research funding for breast cancer? Should they be talking about heart disease too? Just trying for a general increase in research funding for all diseases?
I do agree that BLM made a mistake though--they should have called it "Black Lives Matter, Too". That would have made it clearer what they are going for.
Should my conclusion be that the reasons for unjustified police violence against blacks and the reasons for unjustified police violence against non-blacks have no overlap, and should therefore only be addressed by an identity-oriented organization for each race?
Perhaps one could conclude that the violence by police is not based on race. Perhaps BLM is cherry-picking incidents for another cause, not related to police violence.
If BLM wanted to add legitimacy to their cause, especially to those on the fence, they would raise awareness to these non-black deaths in the same way that they do when it's black deaths. Standing against unjustified police violence against any person is not at all against the "black lives matter" premise. In fact, speaking up about it would help people relate to their cause. But, for one reason or another, they seem to stay relatively silent.