Yes, Black Lives Matter… Unless They Disagree with Liberals
I need everyone to sit down, hydrate, and stop treating Black people like a mascot you only pull out when they say the approved lines.
Black lives matter. This is settled science. If you still need a diagram, go back to college and ask the adjunct who teaches Decolonial Affirmation Studies with a minor in Correct Opinions Only.
A Black man who exists is a Black man. His life is valid. His voice is valid. His presence in the jury room is valid. If you say otherwise, you are denying reality and also probably a reactionary, which is worse.
Now that we have established that Black lives matter, let us establish the second, equally non-negotiable fact:
That same Black man cannot disagree with liberals.
Why? Because Black lives matter… until the moment they stop rubber-stamping the preferred conclusion.
I shouldn’t have to explain this, but I know you’re stupid, so I will explain it like I’m talking to a toddler:
When a Black man is a juror, he is a Black man whose lived experience and moral clarity matter. When that same Black man later refuses to join the 11-person liberal consensus demanding the mother who strangled her three children walk free on a contested postpartum psychosis claim, he is suddenly no longer a Black life that matters. He is an arrogant holdout. The only person of color on the panel, and therefore the one whose Blackness has been revoked for the duration of the deliberation. The principle that applied last Tuesday does not survive contact with an incorrect vote on Friday. MMMkay?
If you don’t understand that, then you need two more PhDs.
I have two PhDs: one in Intersectional Compliance Theory and one in Post-Colonial Correct Thought Enforcement. I know what I’m talking about and you don’t.
Black lives matter is a sacred, universal principle that must be protected from inconvenient applications—except when the Black person is the sole obstacle to the liberal outcome. In that case the principle is valid only until it isn’t, and the people who notice the contradiction are the real problem.
A liberal juror who says “I think deliberately strangling three children with exercise bands after sending the husband out on an errand still allows for a not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity verdict” is centering compassion and maternal mental health.
A Black juror who says “I can’t get over the fact that she viciously killed her children” is… well, he’s the reason we have a mistrial, and the other jurors are now free to go on morning shows and call him arrogant while the children’s lives remain the forgotten part of the story.
If you heard both sentences and thought they described two different standards of justice depending on who was speaking, congratulations on having ears. Now use a second organ: the one that tells you which Black voice is allowed this week.
Most Black people who serve on juries do not single-handedly block the preferred liberal result, which is exactly why the ones who do belong in the category of “problematic” rather than “mattering.” The ones who notice that Blackness is celebrated right up until the moment it produces the wrong conclusion also belong in a different category, and you are not qualified to name it without the correct credentials.
So, clearly: Black lives matter.
Also clearly: Black lives stop mattering the second they disagree with liberals.
Both of these things are true at the same time. If that bothers you, the problem is your need for consistency, which is a colonial construct, like equal application of principle.
Do not ask me which Black people count. The answer is: the ones whose opinions advance the ideology. The others can sit this one out and maybe mow the driveway.
About Author
