11-19-2019, 11:56 PM
Clarification continues, though (like draining a swamp) it can be a long and complex process.
All the special pleading in the world cannot overcome the principle that group members must not be held responsible for the actions of other group members (living and dead) unless they participate in them. Pleas of “systemic” crimes fail because, contrary to this principle, they indict all members of the accused group. We must separate behavior (which is still, in many of the wrong ways, biased or Biblical) from principle - an aspect of the classical is-vs-ought. “Black lives matter” (in its underlying accusation) is comprehensible, but still unacceptable. To obtain relief from prejudice, don’t display prejudice.
I continue perplexed at the inability to see in “blue lives matter” a reasoned and effective statement rather than malignant “satire.” That police are entitled to defend their lives against assault with lethal force is granted, so where’s the satire? There’s wiggling and niggling about cases where police have done wrong (and were punished for it) and false claims that honest mistakes were driven by prejudice... but the bottom line is that police lives do matter, which is the straightforward meaning with no implied criticism. Unlike “black lives matter,” in which that truth conceals - and means to conceal - a false accusation that they don’t matter to people it means to accuse. “Blue lives matters” burns “black lives matters” accusers, so they complain about it. It shows they’re dishonest as well as untruthful. It burns.
Perhaps worst of all is that some deaths and woundings are caused by non-compliant or aggressive actions motivated by belief in police villainy. “Black lives matter” encourages this belief, and its purveyors are to that extent responsible for these tragedies.
[As a final aside, Shylock’s ultimate punishment - forced conversion - probably felt just great to Elizabethan audiences. To Shakespeare himself? Did he intend a teaching moment and fail?]
All the special pleading in the world cannot overcome the principle that group members must not be held responsible for the actions of other group members (living and dead) unless they participate in them. Pleas of “systemic” crimes fail because, contrary to this principle, they indict all members of the accused group. We must separate behavior (which is still, in many of the wrong ways, biased or Biblical) from principle - an aspect of the classical is-vs-ought. “Black lives matter” (in its underlying accusation) is comprehensible, but still unacceptable. To obtain relief from prejudice, don’t display prejudice.
I continue perplexed at the inability to see in “blue lives matter” a reasoned and effective statement rather than malignant “satire.” That police are entitled to defend their lives against assault with lethal force is granted, so where’s the satire? There’s wiggling and niggling about cases where police have done wrong (and were punished for it) and false claims that honest mistakes were driven by prejudice... but the bottom line is that police lives do matter, which is the straightforward meaning with no implied criticism. Unlike “black lives matter,” in which that truth conceals - and means to conceal - a false accusation that they don’t matter to people it means to accuse. “Blue lives matters” burns “black lives matters” accusers, so they complain about it. It shows they’re dishonest as well as untruthful. It burns.
Perhaps worst of all is that some deaths and woundings are caused by non-compliant or aggressive actions motivated by belief in police villainy. “Black lives matter” encourages this belief, and its purveyors are to that extent responsible for these tragedies.
[As a final aside, Shylock’s ultimate punishment - forced conversion - probably felt just great to Elizabethan audiences. To Shakespeare himself? Did he intend a teaching moment and fail?]
Non-practicing atheist