[Nevermark]

Agreed.

--

As a side rant:

"Specious accusations are often confessions."

I understand the psychology and casual use of absolutely worded reactions, and that their extreme expression is not taken literally, but as emphasis. But I still prefer balanced wording.

A surprisingly large number of people tragically clash and talk past each other over charged non-issues, that normal undramatic language would render moot.

I.e. "We must believe all X", vs. "We should listen to all X", ... and many more.

"Black Lives Matter Too", isn't as pithy. Nor should the last word be necessary for anyone to understand the three word version. But the fourth word, nodding to the wider context, pre-counters a lot of ridiculous responses to the original line. Not actually suggesting a sea change in a well recognized movement banner line. But it is a widely observed example of how any lack of pedantic clarity is seized upon by motivated reactionaries, to achieve politically significant impact via obtuse reinterpretation.

A little verbal pedantry is an effective speed bump against the siren song of motivated or inadvertent polarization.

[MengerSponge]

It's naive or foolish to think that the problem with "Black Lives Matter" was insufficient specificity.

People who are not operating in good faith won't operate in good faith. There were thousands of words written on the phenomenon protested by BLM, but those are easily ignored. Three words are twisted and co-opted by propagandists. Consider a function that describes "comprehension by bigots" as a function of word count. We know that 0 words yields 0 comprehension. Evidence suggests that 10k words also yields 0 comprehension. There is no evidence that this Laffer curve will ever achieve anything other than zero.

It's possible to reach and change bigots' minds, but it requires human connections. Not sloganeering, prose, or reels.

[Nevermark]

I agree.

I wasn’t making a hard argument.

Words are not everything. Still, they matter.

To the degree that pushback against anti-minority mistreatment can be framed as pro-universal (reciprocal) respect, I think it helps. Given the latter is in fact the real, most general, and most relevant principle.

That avoids the framing created and imposed by biases. I.e. that somehow, race or other category is the question, instead of (logically and morally) irrelevant to the value of reciprocal respect. Not forgetting the point of it all, avoids actual or perceived reverse biasing. Minority rights and equality being interpreted by either side as anti-majority, or being at the expense of anyone.

Some shrill minority defenders do manage to imply that, as well the people having trouble respecting some group.

This are just thoughts based on what I find works better in personal encounters with people I know or ran into, who had/have difficulty seeing the world without in-group, out-group filters of various kinds.

Keep the simple, general, most important thing clear and center.

Avoid letting the conversation be artificially narrowed by exactly the destructive framing we want to push back on. The narrower the framing the more people forget, ignore, and successfully distract from the main principle. The more people get bogged down in narrower and narrower arguments, the less people understand each other.