[smitty1e]

I have personally been denounced on social media for asking the question:

"How is 'all lives matter' divisive in any way?"

The response was "Oh, well, you know."

No, really, I don't. "All" seems like an inclusive quantifier.

The best understanding I can reach is that many of the arguments in circulation these days are NOT rational in nature.

[ykevinator]

Its divisive because it attempts to dismiss as invalid the notion that one racial group suffers a disproportionate targeting by police. It denies that racism is a problem or at best equates the problems faced by police to the problems created by police violence toward black people. When you say all lives matter, you're basically looking at these millions of people who are working toward making the world less hostile toward black people and saying "you're stupid, you're the racists."

[testbot123]

"All lives matter" is divisive because "black lives matter" is a statement that black lives are largely devalued and forgotten in a system of institutionalized racism. "Black lives matter" leaves off the implied "too": "black lives matter, too."

> "WTF is the impulse behind changing #BlackLivesMatter to #AllLivesMatter. Do you crash strangers' funerals shouting I TOO HAVE FELT LOSS" - @arthur_affect on Twitter

[smitty1e]

I feel as though this discussion has more to do with the control over the discussion than with the content of either phrase.

[eesmith]

Well, yes? That is, the phrase "all lives matter" seems like it's often used as a way to take control away from the discussion about largely devalued and forgotten black lives.

If you want an explanation better than "Oh well, you know", you might start with the criticism section of its Wikipedia entry, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Lives_Matter#Criticism .