I probably agree with most of what this guy says, but I want to address this one point starting at 5:30
So I think that so many people still don't understand "Black Lives Matter". If you are like this person (the Amazing Atheist btw) and think that when people say this they are talking directly to you, then you need to get over yourself, the Amazing Atheist needs to get over himself on this issue. When someone says "Black Lives Matter" they are not saying to you that you don't already think that, they are not talking to you. But you need to understand that there really are lots of people out there who really think that black lives do not matter.
Would you concede that some of these people are black?
Otherwise, I'd like to understand what you mean by a lot of people. I mean you say I need to understand this, and yet I'm unaware of anyone I've met that concludes as such, so if there's a lot of people like this, I'd like to hear of where they are, how we might identify them.
And there really is a justice system that reinforces the idea that Back lives do not matter.
Based partially on spin, and based partially on the idea that actual racists have infiltrated our justice system. But is again an idea that I'd like to understand how we could identify such people? Is it based on what they say, or what they do? If it is only on what they do, and then only after the fact, it leads to the question I asked above.
When a police officer gets away with murdering a black person, the courts are saying that black lives do not matter.
This would be the spin. For the same holds true with all persons murdered by police and the police get away with it, we can then conclude (falsely) that no lives matter to the police, or conclude (more accurately) that regardless of race, if you are near a police officer, regardless of your race, and are not fully compliant with that officer (racist or not), you might be in a dangerous situation where the officer of the state will be determined the righteous actor in the situation given the nature of their job. If fully compliant and make it out alive, you stand to benefit if it can be shown how inappropriate and/or uncalled for the officer's actions were.
When a judge lets off a white rapist with an incredibly light sentence because he does not want to ruin the white swimmer's life, but will still give a harsher sentence a black person for the same crime that judge is saying that black lives don't matter.
Again, this is spin. At best, it is about one judge that from what I recall from RW media was lambasted and ridiculed for his light sentence to the white defendant. Even MSM was lightly ridiculing it, but more interested in exploring it as latest drama for us to behold. RW tends to not like lenient judges regardless of where they reside. So, the RW side of things will be saying treat all convicted criminals with as harsh as the penalty of law permits, regardless of race. Whereas I see LW side of things suggesting routinely that there are mitigating circumstances and those really really really need to be considered during the trial and sentencing. A smart lawyer will know the type of judge they are going against and frame their entire defense in lieu of that.
And generally when black people get incarcerated at a higher rate than whites for drug use when whites use drugs at the same rate, the courts are saying that Black lives do not matter.
This one is more challenging to argue against, but not when making it about black lives, vs. black criminals. Me, I'm pretty much pro legalization of all drugs, so I'd advocate lighter sentences across the board, or full pardons. Another person (regardless of race) may think all drugs, sold on the street, are evil and penalties across the board ought to be harsh.
In essence though, as other posts in this thread have noted, this comes down to how we treat unlawful people in society and how much race plays a factor. In my awareness, white people tend to be fully compliant when an officer is around whereas some black people tend to be rebellious, thinking it a good / wise defense seeing that some cops are rather zealous in their approach to any person on the street. But we also find context of scene matters, such that an officer in Mayberry is likely to be friendly, perhaps naive toward any person on their street while officer in L.A. central is going to be harsh and ready with hand on gun should anyone choose to act the fool. One might think if BLM is to be fully accepted then all (or for sure most) black people would be appear to be fully compliant whenever an officer is around, even if they are inherently racist. If instead, they are going to maintain swaggered demeanor and elevate street cred above full compliance with the law, then are we to blame the allegedly inherently racist criminal justice system for such reactions by the police to those individuals? I'd like to see how any non-police person handles that situation? Is it via intimidation and kowtowing to the street cred level of authority or is it something else? If something else, please explain, for it might make for a good chuckle.
So that is why it is necessary to explicitly say "Black Lives Matter". And if you want to respond by saying "All Lives Matter", fine. But for white people this was never a question. And blue lives matter was never a question. "Black Lives Matter" was, and still in in question. So we need to say it, explicitly.
And some of us will continue to differ, and think BLM comes across as inherently racist as saying WLM would to anyone.
