[ars]

> 'Black lives matter' doesn't mean other lives don't.

Ha! Yes, actually it does mean that. Otherwise you would not single out a single group as more deserving of life than others.

When you call out a specific thing in your argument, you do that to specifically exclude other similar items.

[solipsism]

> Otherwise you would not single out a single group as more deserving of life than others.

It doesn't say "Black lives matter more than others."

Everyone who understands why it's "Black Lives Matter!" instead of "All Lives Matter!" also understands why you think it should be "All Lives Matter!", we just disagree. There's no subtlety to your point, it's blunt and easy to understand.

The difference is, people who think it should be "All Lives Matter!" don't understand why we think it should be "Black Lives Matter!". There's a nuanced point that you don't seem to understand. When you suggest that we're saying black lives matter more than any other lives, you make it clear that you don't get it. This is fine, if you stop misrepresenting the intentions of others they might be willing to explain it to you.

Edit: And by the way, you don't have to agree with it the nuanced point in order to understand it. So Zuck insisting people not cross out "Black Lives Matter" is not him pushing that as an agenda -- it's just him showing an understanding that "Black Lives Matter!" is not the same as "White Power!"

[ars]

> Everyone who understands why it's "Black Lives Matter!" instead of "All Lives Matter!" also understands why you think it should be "All Lives Matter!"

Really? Didn't this slogan arise in the context of a black life trying to kill, or at least harm, another life? How can they possibly defend such a person? And to make him the center of this saying?

It's very clear they mean "Black life matters more than other life." If they meant anything else they would not defend attempted murderers and thugs.

[flashman]

Python analogy for why you're wrong:

    >>> white_lives = {"matter": True}
    >>> black_lives = {"matter": True}
    >>> black_lives['matter'] == True
    True

The statement 'black lives matter' doesn't cause white_lives['matter'] to evaluate to false, or to less than black_lives['matter']. Sometimes you call out a specific thing just to assert its truth.

[ars]

> Sometimes you call out a specific thing just to assert its truth.

It doesn't work that way in English. If you call it out it's because you feel there is something distinct about it that is different from the other members of its group.

Saying "Black lives matter" implicitly says "and others don't", and even if you won't agree to that, at a bare minimum it says "black lives matter more than other lives".

It doesn't help that this slogan arose in a context of defending a black life that was trying to take another life, or at least harm another life. By defending such a person, as they have done, they are very clearly saying "that black life matters more than other life".

Context matters. Every time they use that saying it reminds people that these activists are defending attempted murderers.

[solipsism]

If you call it out it's because you feel there is something distinct about it that is different from the other members of its group.

Exactly. The thing that's distinct is that, in the US, it is necessary to assert that black lives matter. It's not necessary to assert that white lives matter because that's a given.

You may not agree with that view, but that's the view held by most people who say "Black Lives Matter!" You seem convinced that your alternative hypothesis is true, that we all think black lives matter more than other lives. Ask yourself honestly if your alternative hypothesis is just a convenient straw man, easy to argue against, easy to use to cast people who disagree with you as horrible people.

I'm curious what you think of the common advice of parents to little boys, "Treat women with respect." Would you start blathering about how you should treat everyone with respect? Obviously you should treat everyone with respect, but there's a reason to call out women in particular as deserving of respect -- because it's all too common for them not to get it.

You may not like this way of getting a point across, but if you pretend it doesn't exist you risk coming off as a person who doesn't understand nuance.

So, now that you understand this, could you please stop suggesting that people who support "Black Lives Matter!" think other lives don't matter as much?

[ars]

> that we all think black lives matter more than other lives.

No, I don't think all of you think that. I definitely think the founders of the movement think that.

> I'm curious what you think of the common advice of parents to little boys, "Treat women with respect."

Since you asked, I would find that quite sexist and I would never tell anyone that, because it implies that women are inferior and need special protection.

If in fact they do need special protection, then fine. For example the anti-discrimination against blacks laws of the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

Now, I know what you are thinking: Blacks do need special protection, so we need this slogan. Except that the heroes of the slogan are criminals who brought things on themself.

The fact that that is the origin story of the slogan is a big problem for me, and I have a hard time accepting that anyone would support it.

> You may not like this way of getting a point across, but if you pretend it doesn't exist you risk coming off as a person who doesn't understand nuance.

I understand it, I simply disagree with it. It's not the same thing.

> So, now that you understand this, could you please stop suggesting that people who support "Black Lives Matter!" think other lives don't matter as much?

I'll stop suggesting it, when they stop supporting criminals.

[currysoup_t]

Would you prefer it if the movement was called, 'Black Lives Don't Not Matter'?

[rdancer]

it's an elipsis, if you want to get technical: BLM [no less than lives of different colours]