@Thenomain said:
So then either all lives matter, no lives matter, or the truth is somewhere in between.
When the truth is "somewhere in-between", just how far can we go deciding which ones matter and which ones don't. Just how far can we go deciding who gets to decide. Just how far can we go deciding the criteria.
I have RL anger toward this kind of discussion because in recent culture it becomes a contest into the bottomless pit of self-deluded solipsism. "No, you're being selfish, I'm fighting for a cause." It's like the difference between terrorists and freedom-fighters. In both cases, the lives of people just trying to get by are utterly and truly fucked.
And that's where socioeconomic elitists come in when having a discussion about things that generally piss you off.
And that kind of egotism generally pisses me off.
edit: I think the term I'm looking for, that I hate, is Straw Man.
You know, for a coder, you are remarkably dense sometimes.
As someone on Twitter said, "Black Lives Matter" does not mean ONLY black lives matter, and interpreting the statement that way can be read as either ignorance, malice, racism, or all three.
It's like trying to say that people who say "save the rainforests" are saying "FUCK ALL OTHER KINDS OF FORESTS."
Or it's like going to a Greenpeace meeting about endangered whales and screaming "BUT WHAT ABOUT LOBSTERS????!!! All LOBSTERS matter!"