Wedding Couple Demands a Refund After Their Photographer Expresses Support for Black Lives Matter on Instagram

Wedding Couple Demands a Refund After Their Photographer Expresses Support for Black Lives Matter on Instagram

A wedding photographer has received a demand for a refund from a couple after she posted her support for the Black Lives Matter movement on social media. The couple claimed that they would be too embarrassed to have her photograph their big day.

According to Insider, Cincinnati-based photographer Shakira Rochelle had taken a deposit to shoot the wedding of a couple (who remain anonymous). After making a post to Instagram expressing her support of the Black Lives Matter movement, she received a message from the bride stating that they would be "embarrassed" to have her at the ceremony and now wanted a refund.

The text message explained that the couple could not “support anyone who is outspoken on matters that simply do not concern them, as well as someone that does not believe that ALL lives matter.”

Rochelle replied explaining that she would not return the nonrefundable deposit and implied that the money would be donated to a Black Lives Matter organization. She told reporters that she later gave $160 to the NAACP.

In response, Rochelle was informed that the couple’s attorney would be in touch, though given that there was a written contract, it seems unlikely that legal proceedings will go ahead.

Log in or register to post comments

108 Comments

dean wilson's picture

Let me go out on the political limb and suggest the Wedding couple do not understand the phrase "Black Lives Matter" is not to the exclusion of all others (Blue, Pink, White, Suede, Green, Yellow...or any other color you feel like associating with), but that the lives of Blacks are no less important than any other color.

Of course I'm an old white dude that doesn't understand nuthing.

Matt Williams's picture

Yup! Everyone against the phrase seems to have inserted an invisible "only" in front of the words. Otherwise, there's no way you can think it excludes non-black people.

Bernie Bros's picture

It also falsely suggests black lives don’t matter, based largely on lies and false narratives.

Black Lives Matter was founded on the basis Michael Brown was shot in the back with his hands up. Most BLM supporters continue to believe and propagate that founding lie.

In 2019 9 “unarmed” blacks were shot, in a nation of 300 million people. Most of those were clearly justified cases of self defense. The rest resulted in criminal charges.

This is the “evidence” behind the claims of white on black genocide. (Whites are murdered by blacks at exponentially higher rates than the inverse). I’m sure someone will be triggered by the facts.

Matt Williams's picture

you could have just written "I'm racist and have no idea what I'm talking about" - would've saved some time

love how unarmed is in quotes as if they.... weren't? Your comment is so full of shit I don't even know where I'd start.

ignacy matuszewski's picture

Matt, how on earth you find bernies post racist? it's pure numbers and at that moment of history, black people are the most racist folks. After them are muslims. Sorry but it's definitely easier to find places where you can be killed / injured just because you came into wrong neighbourhood and your skin is white, rather than the opposite. Either in murica or the rest of the world.

Lawrence S's picture

Respond with numbers if you think they are incorrect. Don't just throw "racist" into a discussion. People like you are the reason "racist" has no true meaning anymore. It's completely hollowed out.

Matt Williams's picture

It's not my job to do research for you, especially when I know damn well it won't change anyone's mind.

Pierre Dasnoy's picture

Numbers then.
An unarmed person from the middle class walking in the street, is 3,5 times more likely to be injured killed by police in the usa, if he is black.
Enough said, I think.
Anyone not understanding that (even) black lives matter, is racist.

Lawrence S's picture

Yeah, numbers mean nothing without a source. I thought that was a given.

Well .... yes, someone claiming that the lives of one ethnicity are less worthy than others are indeed racist. Did you just found out about this today? Are you the last one to read this in a book or hear it in the news?

Someone asking for numbers and a source however, is not. That's just called debating.

Pierre Dasnoy's picture

*1.5 times according to this study. See table 8.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6080222/

Deleted Account's picture

I'm not disagreeing with you but the problem is, nobody owns the phrase and some individuals, on both "sides" of the issue treat it as "only" Black Lives Matter, as Matt suggests. I would totally embrace it, according to your explanation but how do I simultaneously distance myself from those who's actions indicate a disdain for the lives of police officers or the much larger number of black individuals, who died at the hands of non-policemen? To further complicate the matter, a segment of the Black Lives Matter organization gives the appearance of supporting the exclusivity of who's lives matter so, given their organization has the same name as the sentiment, how does one easily distinguish the two?

These are honest questions and similar to those I deal with all the time as a Christian, given the existence of reprehensible Christians and acts, supposedly done in the name of God.

I'm similarly handicapped by my age, race and gender. ;-)

Matt Williams's picture

I don't know anyone nor have I ever seen anyone on the "side" of BLM who believes that only black lives matter. If you ever go to a rally, they talk about people of all races and the crowd is full of diverse skin colors. I've been to a few and they're really just about equal rights and treatment and of course, police brutality.

Deleted Account's picture
Matt Williams's picture

um, that's about cops.

Police are not a race. They take their uniform off every night, no one knows they're cops without the uniform, and they can quit any time. There isn't even a comparison.

Somehow you think this is an example of people believing that only black lives matter?

Also, cops suck.

Deleted Account's picture

Lives are lives.
I do find it interesting, though, that you rightfully decry prejudice, in the form of racism, and yet demonstrate extreme prejudice against people who willfully put their lives in jeopardy, every day, to preserve your right to do so.
Again, please understand that I do believe that black lives matter; my niece, nephew, grandniece, grandnephew and daughter-in-law are all black and I love them very much.

Matt Williams's picture

lol except, as we are seeing, tons of police are NOT preserving anyone's constitutional rights, and are actually doing the opposite.

that's why they suck

and again, police are not a race. feel like that needs to be stressed, once again.

Deleted Account's picture

Tons? No. Well, maybe "literally" tons: at 180lbs/policeman, average, that would be eleven officers so, "tons" would be at least 22 officers. I can believe that. ;-)

Just so I understand, a young black man, seeing the problems of the world, including racism, deciding to do something about it, becomes a law enforcement officer. Does he "suck" too?

I haven't responded to your comment about police not being a race because it's irrelevant. Racism is a subset of prejudice and your insistence, no other prejudice matters, is ridiculous. Do you think prejudice against short people is less reprehensible than prejudice against people for being white, black, asian, hispanic, aboriginal, etc.? Do you think ugly people are subject to less prejudice than anyone for racism? How about LGBTQ people? Women? You seem to have a very myopic view of life. Maybe I just suck!? :-D

Matt Williams's picture

Again, every form of prejudice you mention are things that PEOPLE CANNOT CHANGE. A short person can't be tall when they get home at night. A gay person can't choose to be straight.

A cop is a cop by choice, and the only "prejudice" they receive is when they are wearing a uniform - otherwise no one knows they're a cop, unless they choose to tell them.

They have a CHOICE to be what they are.

That's fundamentally and categorically different than literally every other example you have given.

Deleted Account's picture

Ahh, I see. So it's okay to discriminate against people for their choices but not their physical attributes? I'm really having a difficult time understanding your criteria and, more importantly, their practical ramifications.

Matt Williams's picture

Depends on the choice.

If it's being a cop, then yeah, cuz they suck.

Deleted Account's picture

Okay. I think we've exhausted the potential of this discussion.

microteck's picture

Mat Williams will never understand until he gets his head out of the sand.

Deleted Account's picture

When my kids were teenagers, people would lament their behavior; I always said, "They'll grow up and straighten out" and they did. Some people just take longer to do that.

Carel van Huyssteen's picture

And who do you call if there are no cops? Cops do much more good than the few individuals who cause harm

Matt Williams's picture

You realize that defunding the police doesn't mean getting rid of law enforcement entirely right? It means dismantling the current system and replacing it with, preferably, multiple departments - most of whom would not be armed. In many countries, there are cops solely dedicated to traffic enforcement, and they're unarmed.

It's not unlike having a specialized department for, let's say... fires. In Brazil, the police are also firefighters. That sounds crazy to us. Well, our system sounds crazy to people in the UK or in New Zealand or [insert dozens of other countries].

Carel van Huyssteen's picture

BLM is loudly calling for dismantling the police force, defunding literally means removing funds, meaning less police officers and equipment.

Lawrence S's picture

There have been protests (small ones, not like in the US, but including looting) in my country. They were posting "protest rules and guidelines". They literally said things like: when you are white, don't talk to the press, direct them to black people. This is not about you, this is about black people - not mixed race, Asian or any other color. This is about black people. Your only job as a white person, is to shield and use your body to protect black people from assaults from the police". Probably those rules came from someone outside BLM, but people were sharing this and attending the protest, like it was the greatest thing ever.

My personal opinion about this is, when BLM started to feel the subtle protest and misconception that people feel that ALL live matters, they should have embraced that idea, that all lives matter and that all people come into contact with injustice or prejudice - whether in contact with police or not. Instead, I only see people stressing that it's only about black people. Even in countries where black people are not the largest group of people with another ethnic background or without any history of slavery. What I meant to say is that they had the opportunity to bring people together - especially the large significant crowd of people who are undecided or still in doubt for any reason or based on personal (bad) experience - but this polarisation is doing the opposite and BLM are now using the (somewhat understandable) semi-counter movement to fuel the idea of them being the ONLY victim. Just imagine being white, hispanic or Asian and struggling in life, bad luck, low income, living in a high crime area and you only see signs telling "Black Lives Matter". You don't need a degree in Psychology to know that's not going to turn out well.

Matthias Kirk's picture

Exactly.

"If A, then B"

"not A
Therefore not B"

is an obvious logical fallacy.

Lawrence S's picture

Same can be said about this:

Now we have:

"A matters !"

-But B also matters

"You're a racist".

Imagine:

"A matters !"

-But B also matters

"Yes, you're right. Let's walk in the streets together and ask for change."

--

Which part will bring people together, strengthening the message and which part will divide people even more?

Karim Hosein's picture

Not the same thing because….

A = All lives matter
B= Black lives matter
C=Cops lives matter
D=[ Designated group ] lives matter

if A then B & C & D
TRUE

if !B | !C | !D then !A
TRUE

if B then A
FALSE!

if C then A
FALSE

if D then A
FALSE

B is FALSE, therefore A is FALSE.

That is to say, claiming “All lives matter,” is to ignore, and spit on, the truth we live in today. All lives cannot matter until Black lives matter.

If one wants A to be true, then one needs to make B & C & D true.

Saying B is true does NOT make A false.

Simple secondary education logic.

Lawrence S's picture

You're calling it "not the same thing", but you're throwing in 3 extra groups of people....
And first you go "secundary education logic" but you end with a purely subjective and emotional conclusion. That "all lives matter" is spitting on the truth. It is not. That is completely your overly defensive interpretation. Claiming all lives matter does not equal "black lives matter less". Nowhere.

Also... it's not math. It's emotion, it's respect That was my point. It's about including people, not excluding. You can't win sympathy and trust with EVERYBODY, if you cut yourself off and don't let anyone in. Basically fighting to get equal treatment and stop people from generalising and at the same time, showing signs and shouting out that all police are murderers - some even saying that all white people are racist in the core. And need to be silent and let black people talk. That's really something when I take public transport and I hear a non-white man calling a young girl in a skirt a whore. I mean, there are so many layers and so many dimensions, and now we have a movement going, but they insist it's only about black people and in one direction.
I believe this is a mistake. How would it hurt their cause if they included other races or even other victims of police brutality? Or acknowledge white people getting killed by police? Or black killed by black? How exactly do you tell those parents, those children, those wives that they need to shout "black lives matter"? How will this convince people who are living it rough, while not being black? How will this connect with people who were a victim of black violence (surprise, it does exist!)?

Let's zoom in for a moment: "Your son was shot and killed by the police? But he's white, so don't be overly dramatic. The real problem is when black people are killed by the police". That's insanely rude and if it was the other way around, it would be accepted as insanely racist.

Also, I'm not really following your logic "not all lives matter until black live matter". What does this mean? How are black lives the key to making everybody's live matter? That makes no sense. It's a nice catchphrase, but it makes no sense when you're actually stressing that it's BLM and not all lives matter.

Karim Hosein's picture

«…throwing in 3 extra groups of people....»
No! I am throwing in two extra groups of people, and the equations are the same IF one ignores them, but, I choose NOT to ignore any marginalised groups.

Ignore C & D, and we are back to one population, and one sub-group.

«…is spitting on the truth.»
Let me explain as simply as I can muster, (although I thought I already did).

IF ALL LIVES Matter, then BLACK LIVES MATTER.

We shout, “BLACK LIVES MATTER,” because, in practice, Black lives do not matter.

Therefore, when one claims boldly that, “All lives matter,” you are basically saying that what is happening to Black lives is a lie.

Capisci?

«…it's not math.»
One paragraph, [ ¶ 9 ] was not maths. It was English. No emotion. That is your narrative, and I am not buying.

«It's about including people, not excluding.»
And that is my point. Saying that “All lives matter,” in response to, “Black lives matter,” is to negate that Black lives are being treated as less than. Responding with, “ALM,” is claiming that the Black experience is a false narrative. Responding with, “ALM,” is excluding the Black experience from reality. “ALM”IS NOT INCLUSIVE!!!!!!

Shouting, “BLM,” does NOT exclude anyone! Their is nothing exclusive about the slogan. Look at the mathematical logic statements above, (or, English statements above, as this is also done in English comprehension at the secondary education level), and you will see that,
B is TRUE
is NOT in any way exclusive of
A is TRUE,
but,
B is FALSE
means,
A is FALSE.

Also, when I DID include two other groups, YOU complained!!!!! YOU COMPLAINED!!!! And now you ask…. Oh, please!

«…shouting out that all police are murderers…. …saying that all white people are racist….»
AGAIN, that is YOUR LYING NARRATIVE, and I am not buying! No one said that but you, and your ilk.

“Some police are murderers,” does NOT mean that, “All police are murderers.” That is the False narrative YOU want to spread about BLM. Again, I am not buying.

“Some Blacks do not trust all police,” is a narrative I will buy, because no one can tell a good cop from a bad cop simply by looking at them. They must interact with them first. If they are a bad cop, then an interaction is a VERY BAD idea for a Black person.

«…they insist it's only about black people…. …other victims of police brutality?»
From their website,
<<<<<<
We affirm the lives of Black queer and trans folks, disabled folks, undocumented folks, folks with records, women, and all Black lives along the gender spectrum.
We affirm our humanity, our contributions to this society, and our resilience in the face of deadly oppression.
>>>>>>
The fact that a bunch of Black people are fighting for Black dignity in no way means that they are ignoring others, and the statement, “We are working for a world where Black lives are no longer systematically targeted for demise,” is not any more inconsistent with that than a group of Chinese nationals in Japan fighting against Chinese oppression. Just because they fight against injustice towards Chinese people, does not mean that they care not for other injustices. Again, that is YOUR narrative, not theirs.

«…black killed by black?»
When those who INSIST on bringing up BoB crime start to quote statistics on WoW crime, come back to me. That is simply a white elephant, (on so many levels), and a red herring, and a straw man, all wrapped into one. BTW, CAPITALISE Black! That is racist!

«How exactly do you tell those parents, those children, those wives….»
Which ones? The White ones you did not mention? Oh! The Black ones! Simple. This is an issue about institutionalised racism. You are conflating several issues. You are saying that people in Florida ought not bother tying to get congress to do something about sea-level rise, because we have hurricanes to worry about.

Yes, there are hurricanes, but that does not mean that we ought to ignore sea-level rise. There are many other socio-political issues which affect Blacks, and even Whites, but that does NOT negate criminal acts by police against Blacks. Yes, some police have needlessly killed some White people, but that does NOT negate the FACT that they kill Black people in disproportionate numbers! Your arguments are quite racist, in that they continue to say, “Shut-up, Black people, about your issues with police discrimination, because we non-Blacks also have issues, so there!”

«…he's white, so don't be overly dramatic.»
Again, no one EVER said that, but YOU! That is YOUR NARRATIVE, and, again, I am NOT buying it. what you are still missing, which I apparently cannot reiterate enough, is the disproportionate ill-treatment of BIPOC by police.

«How are black lives the key….»
THEY ARE NOT the key! It is just FACTS and LOGIC. If All marbles are blue, then glass marbles are blue, and ceramic marbles are blue, and steel marbles are blue, and stone marbles are blue. If glass marbles are not blue, then ALL MARBLES CANNOT POSSIBLY be blue! It is THAT SIMPLE!!!!!

It makes perfect sense except to racists, and those who do not care enough to lend an ear to listen. Which camp are you? So far, you have made so many racist showings, I tend to think the former, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and presume that you have not really thought this out, but keep listening to the racist rhetoric of some of your companions.

All lives CANNOT matter if [ INSERT OPPRESSED GROUP HERE ] lives DOES NOT matter!!!

But is there really a difference between how POC and Whites are treated in this country? Absolutely! How do I know this? Because I pass at every chance I can get, and he who feels it knows it. If I spent too much time in the sun and get a dark tan, I am treated differently. When people see/hear my name, I get treated differently. When I wear a kurta or sherwani, I get treated differently.

No, it is not my personality. No, it is not my attitude. I get treated well when I pass. It is my appearance, and my name, even when they do not even get the chance to meet my charming personality, and caring attitude.

It makes perfect sense. You ought to take the time to look and listen.

Carel van Huyssteen's picture

so what you are saying is that it's okay to be white

Karim Hosein's picture

I absolutely believe that it is okay to be White, but that is not the take-away, here.

Lawrence S's picture

" I choose NOT to ignore any marginalised groups."
->I ignored nobody, don't throw that into my face. I clearly said "A matters" and someone responds "But B matters also". I did not specify what B is, to point out this could be anyone, anywhere. But you start to claim "I'm ignoring people". We're off to a great start.

"Therefore, when one claims boldly that, “All lives matter,” you are basically saying that what is happening to Black lives is a lie.
Capisci?"
->Not at all. That is purely your own logic. You just typ some words and say it's the truth.

I'll try another go, maybe you'll get the perspective:
I have a disease and it's killing me, because of structural lack of health care or support. So I go outside and shout in the streets that "Patients with disease X matter! I meet some parents whose kid died of another condition, let's say disease Y, that is also badly supported or treated. They explain how awful it was and that those stories should also be heard and other people with that condition also need help and let's all get together.
Now, is it okay that I respond to that: "But your daughter died of a disease that hits less people, so you need to start shouting about my disease first and then maybe we can work out a solution for your daughters disease and any other ones. AND if you don't agree with that, you believe it's okay that patients with disease X die and you're a terrible person."

You feel that is a perfectly normal conversation between two people, two families suffering? You feel that is something you would actually say to somebody? You feel that is something that will bring people together and not divide? You are really sure that the family who lost their daughter with disease Y and also asks for help & change, translates to "what is happening to patients with disease X is a lie"?

"Shouting, “BLM,” does NOT exclude anyone! Their is nothing exclusive about the slogan."
->Again, you can repeat yourself many times, but that does not change the fact that this is DID instigate a counter feeling with people that feel left out, you can't control the feeling of the masses - you can adapt and adjust to it politically, so you still reach your goal, but that's not what is happening. Ignoring and downplaying this is, again, a mistake. People don't go to the BLM website to read their mission, they see the signs in the streets, hear the speeches, read the extreme comments of black (and white) BLM supporters on social media, see people trying to make a excuse for the looting and burning. It's also confusing to see black people burn down a store owned by black people or providing for black people, when they join a protest called "Black Lives Matter". And yes, it's a smaller group of opportunistic thugs. But I and everybody else saw more people destroying than people trying to stop them destroying. It's a matter of credibility. But let's not dive into that.

"«…shouting out that all police are murderers…. …saying that all white people are racist….»
AGAIN, that is YOUR LYING NARRATIVE, and I am not buying! No one said that but you, and your ilk."
->Where am I lying? This is actually what is happening, even in my own country. They just wrote "Death to all cops" on a wall in a city in my country. ACAD is seen everywhere, all the time. Statues of of George Washington and Ulysses S. Grant were thorn down in the US, both actions are completely absurd. And yet you call me a liar, even when everybody can read and hear for themselves.

"“Some police are murderers,” does NOT mean that, “All police are murderers.” That is the False narrative YOU want to spread about BLM. Again, I am not buying."
->So you're really claiming that protesters are shouting "Some police are murderers"? "Some police treat black people wrongly". Really? And you're not joking? They really are saying SOME police are murders? Just as ACAB actually means "Some CAB"?

"«…they insist it's only about black people…. …other victims of police brutality?»
No:"From their website,
<<<<<<
We affirm the lives of Black queer and trans folks, disabled folks, undocumented folks, folks with records, women, and all Black lives along the gender spectrum.
We affirm our humanity, our contributions to this society, and our resilience in the face of deadly oppression.
>>>>>>"
->This literally reads it's only about black people and just affirms my point, you do realise this, right?

"BTW, CAPITALISE Black! That is racist!"
->You're joking, right? This is getting ridiculous, again. You just don't make up new spelling rules and call people racist if they don't know or use them.
And of course, you consistently type white people, yet you capitalise Black and Black people. I my country and my own language this is not the way in either case. That capitalized B clearly originates from the US, don't force that countries guilt problems onto others.

"This is an issue about institutionalised racism. You are conflating several issues. You are saying that people in Florida ought not bother tying to get congress to do something about sea-level rise, because we have hurricanes to worry about.
Yes, there are hurricanes, but that does not mean that we ought to ignore sea-level rise. There are many other socio-political issues which affect Blacks, and even Whites, but that does NOT negate criminal acts by police against Blacks. Yes, some police have needlessly killed some White people, but that does NOT negate the FACT that they kill Black people in disproportionate numbers! Your arguments are quite racist, in that they continue to say, “Shut-up, Black people, about your issues with police discrimination, because we non-Blacks also have issues, so there!”

->This is amazing. You twist my words again and again. Institutionalised racism has not only an effect on black people. If I claim that people of another ethnicity than black or even white people may feel left out and feel neglected, that does NOT mean that I claim that those people have the right to down play the problems that black people have. Or that I am negating those problems black people are experiencing. Why do you keep wrongly citing me over and over? Just so you can call me racist. That's really, I mean really, stupid.

"It is just FACTS and LOGIC. If All marbles are blue, then glass marbles are blue, and ceramic marbles are blue, and steel marbles are blue, and stone marbles are blue. If glass marbles are not blue, then ALL MARBLES CANNOT POSSIBLY be blue! It is THAT SIMPLE!!!!!"
->But again, that's not how reality is. Glass marbles are not the only ones lacking blue. Others lack blue too. You're again confirming that you believe there is only one and just one specific group of people that is having problems and that their problem should be addressed first ("make the glass marbles blue first")

"Which camp are you? So far, you have made so many racist showings"

->I have literally shown zero racist showing. Not agreeing with your logic about a phrase and explaining how it effects the emotions of other people in a society, does not make me a racist. This is the thought process that is never going to solve anything and makes the true meaning of racisme empty.

I find it very peculiar as an European to witness how USA "let's not offend or exclude anyone" stumbles on a problem about in/exclusion, a REAL issue rises and instead of adapting and opening doors, they close doors - materialised right here in all the twisted words and racist accusations you throw back at me.

Let's summarize.
*A cop jumps out of his car and shoots ten people, six who are black, three who are white, one that is Asian.*

You say:
"This is institutionalised racism, look at those six black people who died"
I say:
"This cop shot and killed ten people, including four other people, he should be sentenced to jail".
You say:
"You are ignoring the black ones, you are a racist, you don't understand the problem".
I say:
"No, I am ignoring nobody. I'm pointing out he shot more than 6 people, not only black people."
You say:
You are such a racist. You don't see the logic and facts, he shot more black people, so FIRST cops should stop shooting black people."

Karim Hosein's picture

Two posts, because I do not want to conflate separate issues.

«I ignored nobody, don't throw that into my face.»

ANALYSIS →

DEAN WILSON: «the Wedding couple do not understand the phrase "Black Lives Matter" is not to the exclusion of all others (Blue, Pink, White, Suede, Green, Yellow...or any other color you feel like associating with), but that the lives of Blacks are no less important than any other color.»

MATTIAS KIRK: «Exactly.
"If A, then B"
"not A
Therefore not B"
is an obvious logical fallacy.»

[ In this scenario, there is no obvious, suggested, nor required relationship between A and B, except that B will be if A. ]

YOU: «"A matters !"
-But B also matters
"You're a racist".
Imagine:
"A matters !"
-But B also matters
"Yes, you're right. Let's walk….»

[ In this scenario, it appears that A & B are both sub-groups within the entire population, but not necessarily so. B *might* represent the entire population. Vis-a-vis the context of BLM vs ALM, it would strongly suggests that B is the entire population. ]

ME: «A == All lives matter
B == Black lives matter
C == Cops lives matter
D ==[ Designated group ] lives matter
if A then B & C & D = TRUE
if !B | !C | !D then !A = TRUE
if B then A = FALSE!
if C then A = FALSE
if D then A = FALSE
B is FALSE, therefore A is FALSE.»

[ In this scenario, it has been made implicitly clear that, A is the entire population, while B, C, & D are sub-groups within A, which may or may not overlap. Also, this scenario IS INCLUSIVE of other groups, and excludes no one, since one can be a member of { Designated Group } when one defines it. ]

YOU: «You're calling it "not the same thing", but you're throwing in 3 extra groups of people....»
«It's about including people, not excluding. You can't win sympathy and trust …if you cut yourself off and don't let anyone in.»
«…stop people from generalising….»

ME: «I am throwing in two extra groups of people, and the equations are the same IF one ignores them, but, I choose NOT to ignore any marginalised groups.
Ignore C & D, and we are back to one population, and one sub-group.»
«B is TRUE
is NOT in any way exclusive of
A is TRUE,
but,
B is FALSE
means,
A is FALSE.» [ In my scenario where A is the full population, and B is a sud-group within A. The logic holds true if we used D instead of B. It is inclusive. ]
«Also, when I DID include two other groups, YOU complained!!!!!»

YOU: «I ignored nobody, don't throw that into my face. I clearly said "A matters" and someone responds "But B matters also". I did not specify what B is, to point out this could be anyone, anywhere. But you start to claim "I'm ignoring people". »

[ In this scenario, you are clearly suggesting that A & B are two separate, non-intersecting groups. ]

CONCLUSION

The context of the discussion is clear! The context of what I said is exceedingly clear! Saying that BLM does NOT in any way, shape or form, exclude anyone, and the issue at hand is institutionalised racism, not police brutality, and the solution to institutionalised racism, will solve the other critical, (but less critical), issue.

Yes, some critical issues can be less critical than others. I have a friend who was diagnosed with cancer. When he went for treatment, and they did a full workup, they decided NOT to treat the cancer UNTIL they treated his heart condition. Treating the cancer with his heart condition was dangerous. They spent about three years so far, getting his heart healthy, in order that his cancer can be eventually treated.

Can the cancer kill him? YES! Can the heart condition kill him? YES! Are they BOTH CRITICAL conditions? YES! Did the doctor “ignore” —not the word I would use, but let's go with that— one condition for three years (so far)? YES! Are the doctors anti-heart disease, and pro-cancer? NO! But they are trying to get rid of the heart disease, but not seeming to even care about the cancer? WRONG! They are simply attacking the greater (critical) issue FIRST, then deal with the lesser (critical) issue after, when the greater issue will NOT interfere with the fight against the cancer!

Karim Hosein's picture

Second post.

«You're joking, right? This is getting ridiculous, again. You just don't make up new spelling rules and call people racist if they don't know or use them.
And of course, you consistently type white people, yet you capitalise Black and Black people.»

REALLY????? Show one incident, JUST ONE!!!! (…and IF you do, I would happily admit that I was wrong, and go correct it. JUST ONE YOU LIAR!!!! The proof is there for all to see!!! You cannot really lie like a head of state on an Internet forum filled with intelligent people and expect them NOT to fact-check you. Press [F3], put {white} in the search bar, and hit the down arrow for every occurrence! The only occurrence of lower-case “white” in any of my posts, is when I did a CnP of someone else!!! LIAR, LIAR, LIAR!!!!

When you start lying about me, to make your point, the discussion ends. Just one more thing and I am done here.

“For years, we fought to get them to start using a capital ‘N’ in ‘Negro,’ and when we finally do, they start calling us ‘Black,’ with a little, ‘B’”.
[EDIT reason = attribution and background for the quote ]
I believe the quote was from W. E. B. Du Bois, but it may have been Jesse Jackson, (Or he was quoting Du Bois), Ralph Abernathy, or some other spokesman of the NAACP. It Was W. E. B. Du Bois who had taken up the cause to title-case, “Negro,” as was normal for references to ethnic groups. Du Bois had a preference for the term, Black, (which he always capitalised), but the US government had adopted, “negro,” as the (somewhat) official term to refer to the (relatively) new population of freed slaves. He therefore chose his battle, and fought for over a decade to get ‘Negro’ capitalised.

In March, 1930, the NYT finally decided to always title-case, ‘Negro,’ in their paper, but by 1960, had adopted, ‘black,’ (in lower-case), instead. Jesse Jackson championed the fight to officially change the terminology to “African-American,” as the compound phrase contained two words which no publisher would ever conceive of printing in lower-case.
[/EDIT]

No ethnic group is ever described with a lower-case letter in the English language. It IS RACIST, and OFFENSIVE! So, no, I am NOT joking, and no, I do not make up the rules, and IF you did not know the rules, (which, by YOUR use of lower-case “W” in, “White,” may be true), then simply admit your ignorance, apologise, and correct it. Do not think that the very long standing rule of English does not apply to you. (If one is French, or from some other culture, maybe there is some excuse, and one can get a pass, but, in learning English, these rules are taught, such as capitalising days of the week. Those proficient in English cannot claim that they knew not the rules).

Now I am done! Good-day, Sir!

Lawrence S's picture

Waaw.

Just one point that says everything about you:

You called me a racist many times for no reason and one of those times is because I did not capitalise the first letter of the word "black".

Which I explained that:

A/ this is only a thing in the USA, not in Europe. We don't write black (or white or any color) with a capital. Not in our own native language, not in English.

and B/ You don't capitalise the first letter of "white" either.

Your reaction: you go back to your post and edit all the words "white" to "White" (yes we can see you did that) and then call me a liar. No, I stand corrected: you shout at me and call me a liar.

This is the level you operate at. How desperate and out of ideas does one need to be, to lower himself to this childish behaviour?

An no don't turn it around, why would I lie about you typing "white" without a capital letter, if everyone could see the opposite immediately?

This amazing. You just lost all credibility in one snap. Forever. You're a child. I'm going to talk to grown ups now.

Karim Hosein's picture

«We don't write black (or white or any color)....”
It is NOT a colour, we are speaking about! It is a PEOPLE!!!!!!

If it were a colour, then hardly anyone is actually the colour, “black.” But you are too deep in your ingrained racism, (meaning racism which you do not recognise, at it was taught to you), to recognise that. When we talk about Black people, and White people, we are speaking of an ethnicity, a special group. We are not talking about “colour,” such as a white elephant. You would have known that, had you thought of the quote from the US civil rights struggle which I gave.

In English, we speak of ‘the French,’ and ‘the English.’ In French, they speak of ‘la française,’ and ‘l'anglaise.’ In English, we say, “black wall, white floor,” but we also say, “Black man, White woman.” That has ALWAYS been the English language rule. We speak of “Roma/Romani,” and not “roma/romani.” we speak of “First People,” and not “first people.” It IS OFFENSIVE, and yes, I do SEEM TO BE “shouting.” Why? Because neither *bold* nor [b]bold[/b] works in Disqus, and I cannot be bothered to take the time to go to 𝐛𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭.𝐢𝐨 every time I want to stress something. So, to stress it, I use all caps instead, as the only reasonable option on Disqus.

«...You don't capitalise the first letter of "white" either.»
You still cannot show NOT ONE example where I did not capitalise “White,” in reference to an ethnic group. YOU LIE!!!!!! Do a search as I have asked you to do. Anyone else can. JUST ONE EXAMPLE. You did not show any, because there is none, where I used lower-case, “w” in “White,” (again, except where I used CnP of someone else's words, quoting them. It hindsight, I ought to have added, “[sic]” to such quotes. I apologise for NOT doing so. If you desire, I will be more than happy to do so).

Now you Lie and say that I edited all my posts to correct them. LIAR!!!! I NEVER ONCE DID THAT!!!! I did offer to edit any example which you can find, after I apologise for any example you can find, but there was NONE to find, thus none to correct. [ASIDE] Any edited post will have {edited} marked by it, so you can tell which posts are edited. Although many of my posts do have that symbol, it is usually because I re-read and edited for clarity, edited to put in missing, “R”s, (as my “R” key is ‘sometime-ish’), to correct faulty “outow-korek”, or to add additional detail. Unfortunately, Disqus does not keep an editing history, but, nevertheless, you still lie! There was NEVER a case of me using “white” to describe an ethnic group [/ASIDE]

You can lie about me all you want, but you cannot lie about English language usage regarding references to a people, culture, language, or ethnicity. It is ALWAYS capitalised.

[EDIT reason = added reason for this post ]
Yes, I said I was through talking with you, because you LIED about me, and what I posted, but it seemed that you lacked the knowledge of the difference between “black/white,” a colour, and, “Black/White,” a people/ethnicity. Because of that, I chose to respond, as it may not be just you who is unaware of the issue, especially in light of you claiming —correctly, but irrelevantly— that English does not capitalise colours (when used descriptively for the appearance of different frequencies along the visible electro-magnetic wave spectrum).
[/EDIT]

[EDIT reason = “proof of my capitalisation of 'White’”]
You did a CnP of something I said in a previously. In your post, the CnP has “White” capitalised, but your usage shows lower-case, PLUS, your post was edited, where you could have, had you so wanted to, alter the truth to depict, “alternate facts.” The fact that the CnP of my comment has upper-case “White”, and it was done AS you claimed that I used lower-case, then clearly I could NOT have edited it after the fact.

Thank you for proving me right with your own post, and proving yourself wrong.

*Mic Drop* BOOM!
[/EDIT]

[EDIT reason = “further proof of my capitalisation of 'White’”]
My two unedited replies to Dieter B on 22nd June, and my unedited reply to Carel van Huyssteen 23rd June, BEFORE your LIES. In addition, all my posts in the PetaPixel article, all prior to this, now locked.
[/EDIT]

anthony marsh's picture

BLM is a dangerous traitorous group whose more prominent members have stated,"We are trained MARXISTS". That statement disproves it's claim of being a social justice group,it is in reality a domestic terrorist group.

Karim Hosein's picture

«BLM is a dangerous traitorous group whose more prominent members have stated,"We are trained MARXISTS".»

Outright lie! Sick and tired of hearing it. Based on ONE video, where one person said one word, (which was NOT “Marxist”), and now we have liars like you saying, “dangerous, traitorous, members (plural)” said something they never said. Not even one person said what you claim she said.

Bye.

anthony marsh's picture

Karim you know full well that the statement was made not one time but many times. Educate yourself,research the socialist MARXIST organizations that BLM has ties to and sources of it's income. If that does not change your view you are either a socialist,MARXIST or a completely lost cause.

Karim Hosein's picture

Funny, but everyone who ever said this lie, when asked to show their source, always show the same endless steam of “sources,” which always eventually goes back to the same, single, interview, where the one person, said the wrong word for “marketers,” (she said, “marketists”), and claim “the many sources where they have said, many time….”

It never happened, and you cannot find “many times,” much less one time when they (she) ever said anything of the sort.

As for socialist Marxist —in all upper-case, if you like— organisations which fund them, again, nothing but FUD from fear-mongers. No one can give any evidence of even one.

STOP THE LIES! STOP FOLLOWING NON-RELIABLE “SOURCES”!

P.s., even if I were a socialist, a Marxist, or a completely lost cause, none of that would make your statements any more true.

Jan Holler's picture

You should learn something about logic. "B is FALSE, therefore A is FALSE." is correct. Only B is not false! But your conclusions are. Because this is not about logic, this is about the society! Telling "Black lives matter" is simply a reaction upon what happened. You have to count in the context!

Karim Hosein's picture

«Only B is not false!»

B is not false in principle, but it is false in practice. Trust me. I have experienced how false it is in practice. You are correct. It is ABSOLUTELY about society.

«…simply a reaction upon what happened.»
It is a reaction to what has been happening, and continues to happen. It is NOT just one event. Yes, the Trayvon Martin incident was the straw which broke the camel's back, but it was NOT a response to just that. Trust me. The issues started LONG before Trayvon Martin.

Jan Holler's picture

Of course you are correct. "what has been happening". I am not native speaking English. I meant it the way you write it. I do know that this was not a single event. Thank your for correcting me.

anthony marsh's picture

You sir are sadly uninformed of the philosophical and political views of BLM. One statement made by some of it's more prominent members,"We are trained MARXISTS" should disabuse anyone of believing that it is a social justice movement. It is in truth a socialist group whose ultimate goal is a socialist U.S. government.

Matt Williams's picture

Good luck lol

More comments