Honest question. I don't listen to the pod cast but I watch some of the clips on YouTube and have never really found anything to be too incendiary. The podcast seems to be as about as interesting as who ever the guest that week is.
Why is this comment the dumbest I’ve ever heard? Many people are talking about this. Lots of people are saying that this person might have been trying to push an agenda. I’m just asking questions here. Questions that I could look up and find the answer to but that’s not the point of the podcast. The podcast is to discuss interesting topics, like this comment, maybe being the dumbest comment. Let’s bring on our guest, someone who has nothing to do with the topic, but is full of opinions. Again, this is a topic we could easily research but that’s not the point of the podcast, the point of the podcast is just to talk, just to ask questions and have a conversation, an intellectual conversation with other men, and hot girls of course! Anyway removed amirite?
Lost all respect for him and any of his fans when I heard him SCREAMING at a primatologist when she was correcting whatever it is he said was wrong. This guy started just screaming at this old woman because she had the audacity to tell him there was no such thing as a "Bondo Ape". If a guy can't change his mind when presented with DNA evidence and results in acting like a wild beast that's gonna be a red flag.
It also makes me wonder how many times he's screamed at guests/callers for telling he's factually wrong and what the gender breakdown is.
And people wonder why they are single. Because they are red flaggging potential partners for stupid things like this. While it might as well be a nice person open for debate and not afraid to compromise.
It's because saying you're a communist usually means you also think the horrors commited by Russia/USSR/China etc are either fake or justified. People who are really just in favor of common ownership of the means of production usually call themselves socialists or marxists.
If you are actually interested in an answer, I can try to explain. Think of the black experience in America (police brutality, institutionalized racism etc) as a house that's on fire. Imagine it's your house, and you call the fire dept and you tell them "hey my house is on fire i need help!" and instead of helping they say "why is your house special in particular? All houses are important so why should we devote resources just to yours!" It'd be pretty stupid. Of course all houses should matter, but there's one in particular right now that needs special attention and help. That's all black lives matter means; it's saying hey this group in particular needs our help and we're calling attention to it.
I know it's not a perfect metaphor but hopefully you get the idea. It admittedly is not the best messaging because without some context and critical thinking it seems exclusionary. Really the inplication of the phrase is "black lives matter (as much as white lives)" or even just "black lives matter (too)". But neither of those are as snappy as slogans so they wouldn't have worked. It's the same way the feminism is about gender equality, not putting women above men.
Consider also that "all lives matter" doesn't exist in a vacuum but instead came about as a response to people saying blm. At best "all lives matter" is a completely unhelpful response from people who completely miss the point of saying blm, but for a lot of bigots out there it's intentional misappropriation of the phrase meant convey to black people that they should just shut the fuck up and accept the status quo. So it's a red flag because the people who typically say it are either racists or ignorant of black struggle. "All lives matter" is often times a dogwhistle for the alt-right.
Imagine you go to a pot luck. You spend some time on your dish, and bring your slow cooker. You end up near the back of the food line. By the time that you make it all the way to the front, the food is all completely gone. You realize that some people who went through the line early have taken two, three, four plates. Some of those same people didn’t even bring a dish of their own.
You say to the group “hey, I deserve some food.” They turn to you, and with a tone of derision reply “we all deserve some food.”
Because saying "All Lives Matter" means you completely missed the entire point of BLM. It's a red flag for ignorance and stupidity in that way. "Black lives matter" doesn't mean..and never meant..that only black lives matter so ALM is correcting something that doesn't need to be corrected.
People might have understood it more readily if they'd said "black lives matter too" but that's a really weak statement when you're talking about the right to exist. Their lives matter, period. It's a more forceful statement but was not meant to exclude any others' lives. That's extremely obvious to most people.
The fact that there's been plenty of time to understand it since then means that the people who think "all lives matter" is a good thing to say are engaging in willful ignorance in a callous way. That's why it's a red flag. It's a true statement..but it only needs to be said if you're someone who really didn't get it in the first place.
I also need to know why "All Lives Matter" is such a big deal when you're using it in a way that negates marginalizing any group?
Except it's not used that way. Imagine if there was a group that, every time anyone said "remember 9/11" responded with "remember all buildings." The message is "the problems that you face and are trying to bring specific attention to aren't worthy of attention"