[manfredo]

One could argue that "black lives matter" is exclusory to all other races. "All lives matter" is often meant as a means to include the rest of the population (and thus, have better chances of creating change). It's viable to argue that sticking with the former is worth the exclusive rhetoric because Black people suffer disproportionately. But the notion of actually _firing_ someone over using "all lives matter" as the memo alleges seems absolutely insane.

[emddudley]

No, one could not argue that in any seriousness. All Lives Matter is being used primarily as an attempt to diminish Black Lives Matter.

[manfredo]

One absolutely could. Black lives matter is a strict subset of all lives matter. Any life being covered by "black lives matter" is also covered by "all lives matter". In that sense, it cannot diminish "black lives matter" because "black lives matter" is wholly contained within "all lives matter". Furthermore, the portion of the population that has a direct interest in the movement succeeding is expanded by 5-7x. Seems like a pretty big gain to me

For what it's worth, I approve of both "all lives matter" and "black lives matter" since both are working towards positive goals, they only differ in specificity. I do, however, disapprove of trying to pressure people into substituting the latter with the former or vice versa.

[wilsonnb3]

You're completely ignoring the subtext from the All Lives Matter folks.

Saying "all lives matter" in response to "black lives matter" implies that the BLM folks are saying that only black lives matter, which they are not saying. It also implies that all races in america face similar struggles, which is also not totally true.

[manfredo]

It seems you don't actually object to "all lives matter" - just the messages you're injecting in your interpretation. Nothing about "all lives matter" says that all races suffer equally. Nothing about it says that "black lives matter" is denying the worth of non-black lives.

Appeals to judge based on subtext is often an excuse to construct a strawman. A good analogy is criticism of "listen and believe". Many of it's critics complain that it has the subtext that we should do away with the priciples of innocent until guilty and due process. But the phrase says nothing of the sort - just that we should support and listen to victims. Some, perhaps even a significant portion, of those saying "listen and believe" may have used it to further those notions, but it is not correct to pass judgement on the phrase itself.

And for what it's worth I do think that those two messages you outlined are not okay. As stated earlier. That's why I disapprove of "all lives matter" folks from trying to tell "black lives matter" to say "all" - because doing so is depriving people of a voice to more specifically highlight the discrimination Blacks face. Similar I disapprove of the reverse, because it gives credence to the notion that "black lives" is in exclusion of other groups.

[wilsonnb3]

> Appeals to judge based on subtext is often an excuse to construct a strawman.

I disagree. Subtext and context are immensely important when judging a message like "all lives matter". Judging it based solely on the literal meaning is the strawman.

> Nothing about "all lives matter" says that all races suffer equally. Nothing about it says that "black lives matter" is denying the worth of non-black lives.

"All Lives Matter" came about as a response specifically to "Black Lives Matter". What other possible reason could you have for saying "All Lives Matter" in response to "Black Lives Matter" if you don't think "Black Lives Matter" denies the worth of non-black lives?

I don't understand why you're so set on interpreting both "Black Lives Matter" and "All Lives Matter" as if they only meant what they literally said.

[bobdole12345]

Let me explain something you seem to be missing: subtext.

Subtext is what is being said without being said. So, when I say, "break a leg" to an actor most people pick up on the subtext, and realize I'm not wishing the actor actually break their leg.

When someone responds to "Black lives matter" with "All lives matter", most people get the subtext is that assuredly racist. I know that might seem confusing, because they're saying one thing, while meaning something very different.

[manfredo]

> So, when I say, "break a leg" to an actor most people pick up on the subtext, and realize I'm not wishing the actor actually break their leg.

Incorrect, this isn't subtext, this is an idiom.

> When someone responds to "Black lives matter" with "All lives matter", most people get the subtext is that assuredly racist.

Complaints about "subtext" is often an excuse to construct and attack a straw man. Consider the phrase "listen and believe". Plenty of critics complained that this had the subtext of taking actions against the accused on testimony alone, and doing away with the principles of due process. Some users of the phrase may have attempted to advance those views, but "listen and believe" in and of itself is not about eroding due process - just that we should support people who believe they are victims. Similarly "All lives matter" is not a racist viewpoint - unless someone genuinely believes that the idea that any unjustly extinguished life is a tragedy is somehow racist.

"All lives matter" when specifically used to the exclusion of "black lives matter" (e.g. telling BLM activists to say "all lives matter" instead) may have a racist subtext. And as I have mentioned repeatedly elsewhere, I do not approve of these usages. That said, the blanket statement that "all lives matter" is racist is as wrong as saying "listen and believe" is about punishing people on baseless accusations.

[bobdole12345]

Man you can really miss a point there.

Look at the people saying "All lives matter", then look at the people saying "Black lives matter".

Lo, and you are enlightened my child.

[landryraccoon]

> One could argue that "black lives matter" is exclusory to all other races.

Is it solely the name that you object to, or the idea that discrimination in law enforcement against minorities should be rectified? If it's the former, it seems like such a minor point, like saying you don't like Twitter because the name is dumb. The fact that you don't like the marketing name of a non profit / activist movement seems like such a trivial thing to start an entire counter-movement over. If it's the latter, and you think that discrimination against minorities isn't worth making a fuss over, that is actually pretty racist.

[dragonwriter]

> One could argue that "black lives matter" is exclusory to all other races.

Not without ignoring the context, meaning, and focus.

> "All lives matter" is often meant as a means to include the rest of the population

No, it's a dismissal of the central problem that BLM is organized to address.