[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.