Probably because that isn't in my position.
There's nothing implicit in voicing support for cops that implies rejection of support for civil rights for black people. Where that comes in is in:
- how Blue Lives Matter was specifically started as a response to Black Lives Matter.
Calling it "a response" to BLM seems like a vague and ambiguous statement.
For that matter I'm wondering what the term "response" is even supposed to mean in this context, and why it's automatically to be taken as a bad thing.
To mimic something isn't usually automatically seen as an attack or an attempt to mock or undermine.
Blue Lives Matter was founded to address an emerging trend of violence towards police after the murders if two ny police officers.
Not seeing how this is a "response" to BLM, even without any clarification as to what the term is supposed to imply or why it should be considered a point against them.
Even the very name of the movement refers to Black Lives Matter. They both literally and figuratively removed the "Black" and replaced it with "Blue."
They didn't "remove Black" from Black Lives Mater. Go look, it's still there.
- the actions done by the Blue Lives matter movement. They've proven that they aren't just about safeguarding the lives and well-being of police officers; they're also the flag that people rally to when they're against, say, disciplining cops for unwarranted violence against black people, or against structural changes to combat racism on police forces.
Can you give a few examples?
Black Lives Matter is about trying to stop the cops from killing as many black people as they do right now. More often than not, Blue Lives Matter is about opposing the measures proposed to achieve BLM's goal.
For instance?