the problem with addressing race issues on this forum is that most people are incredibly uninformed and give middle-of-the-road generally agreeable takes without learning about the nuance of it. I don't think all of you are acting in bad faith, but it comes off as dismissive and dodges questions.
Part of TomsHere's post is a nice example of what i mean:
But if "racism" means saying you think all lives matter, and that black lives don't matter even the tiniest bit more than white lives on account of being black, (because there is no such thing as a one-sided equality) then whether this definition of "racism" is bad or not is more of an open question.
(Correct me if I'm wrong on the interpretation) This statement, in and of itself, isn't anything to argue with. It's a very good, egalitarian perspective on race, everyone should matter equally. But it doesn't get the whole historical nuance of the conversation and it comes across very tone-deaf to someone who's familiar with issues related to BLM.
Here's a good reddit comment to sum it up:
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.
[...]
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.
The black lives matter movement is to bring light and correct racial injustice faced by the black community in the United States. These injustices have been ongoing for centuries and are a direct product of decades of Jim Crowe, Redlining, gerrymandering, police brutality, and just plain old racial discrimination by the state and society. To sum it up to "they are saying blacks only matter therefore i should respond with all lives matter" is incredibly simplistic, naive and ignorant.
It's hard to have a conversation when people are ignorant and dismissive without even noticing that they are.
If "racism" means "benefitting from a system in which whites tend to get more desirable results on average" then that is nowhere near enough information to say whether it's bad or not.
Can you elaborate as to why "a system in which whites tend to get more desirable results on average" is not clearly bad for you?