Thank you. This is settled, then?
What responses are acceptable if someone tells me that all lives matter?
“Evidence indicates to the contrary.”
Is that an equally accurate response to someone saying that black lives matter?
Obviously. Long live the bobot!
“Eye” haven’t done anything about it? What are you, a Democrat? Now you expect someone else to fix your problem? And then, I suppose, the government must provide you with a free cheese.
I reject the claim that saying All Lives Matter is racist. The only Black Lives Matter mob can’t say All Lives Matter because they have proven themselves to be racist. Blue lives do not matter. Gay lives do not matter.
FYI, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) doesn’t piss me off.
Again with these fictional people. I get it, the fictional only Black Lives Matter mob are a bunch of jerks. But your obsession with a group of imaginary people is becoming a bit disconcerting…
He has something of a point, though.
Imagine I see someone declaring that black lives matter; it maybe doesn’t even occur to me to wonder if he means that only black lives matter; I’m a darned nice guy and so can assume he means that all lives – including black lives – matter.
Now imagine I see doorhinge approach that guy while expressing the sentiment that all lives matter – and I figure he means that all lives, including black lives, matter. Aha, I think to myself, if I’m right, then I’m about to see them agree!
Does the first guy prove me right by agreeing that all lives, including black ones, matter? Or does he surprise me with a reply that’s (a) inconsistent with that, but (b) consistent with believing that only black lives matter?
That’s kinda the point, innit?
Well, yeah; that’s why I figured saying that all lives matter is no more objectionable than saying that black lives matter.
Ah yes, black people bleeding out in the street after being shot by police ought to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps . . . don’t mind the bodily fluids sloshing around in the bottom of their shoes. Those idiot black people expecting the government to solve their problem for them!
It’s obvious that you are not responding to anything that I said, but I’ll repeat just in case you accidentally missed it the first time:
Who gives a shit if ‘Black Lives Matter’ is nothing but a bunch of whiny assholes. Being a whiny asshole is an understandable (if not the only) response to numerous real and imminent injustices that lead directly to loss of life and liberty that you and I don’t have to worry about. So if BLM pisses you off, I suggest working double-hard on addressing those injustices, so that they won’t have a reason to get angry in a way you disapprove of. It’s win/win; everybody gets what they want!
Ok then.
Well, no, not really, because Black Lives Matter is as much a reminder as a slogan. The Black Lives Matter movement was created pretty much because police in this country have consistently proven that All Lives don’t Matter to them, at least, not equally. If all lives actually mattered, we wouldn’t have to remind people that black lives matter.
Plus, you’ve also got people like @doorhinge who look at Black Lives Matter and incorrectly infer an unspoken “Only”, when they should be inferring “Also.”
But that’s my point: if someone tells me the police aren’t acting like all lives matter, because they aren’t acting like black lives matter; and then adds that the police should act like all lives, including black lives, matter – explaining that all lives, including black lives, matter – then I’m going to nod just as much if he says that along with “all lives matter” or “black lives matter”, and I won’t call him a racist in either case
In both cases I could do the are-you-describing-cops-today-or-talking-aspirationally bit; but in both cases I can simply take each side to mean that all lives, including black lives, should be treated as if they mattered, because they do to me, and we as a society should act that way and demand liberty and justice for all.
But, as far as I can tell, people are looking at the All Lives Matter types and inferring an unspoken “uh, not including black lives.” Even when they explicitly say, if asked, that folks should of course infer “including black lives.”
If we infer the “also”, I figure we can likewise infer the “including black lives.”
But All Lives Matter is a response to Black Lives Matter, and as such carries an implicit accusation that there is something wrong with saying Black Lives Matter. At the top of your post you say that, basically “either is fine” (correct me if I’m reading something other than what you meant). But these, er, movements/concepts/loose organizations didn’t both just spring up organically. All Lives Matter says, fairly explicitly, that Black Lives Matter is flawed.
I don’t think its reasonable to pull these phrases out of real-world context and say, “well, they both mean kind of the same thing.”
You know what would be awesome? If I were capable of believing that that was the actual sentiment of most people who say All Lives Matter. Unfortunately for me, my experience has taught me otherwise.
That’s because, in my experience, that’s exactly what they mean. IME, for every one person who says “All Lives Matter” and really means “All Lives Matter, including Black Lives,” there are at least ninety-nine people who say “All Lives Matter” but really mean “Shut up, darkie!”
On preview, also, what @Eonwe said.
Well, leaving aside that seemingly left-leaning cite I came across – the one where the guy mentions that the first time he saw All Lives Matter, it was being done in mere solidarity with Black Lives Matter, possibly as a quibble over tactics – I guess I’m taking doorhinge and the like seriously: they hear the phrase Black Lives Matter; and they realize it’s possible to infer an “only”; and, eschewing obfuscation, they’d personally rather express the sentiment by literally saying that all lives matter.
I find neither phrase objectionable, because I infer that the folks who say either are trying to convey that all lives – including black lives – matter. I mean, sure, it’s a rebuttable presumption, but when pressed for details doorhinge has specified that, yes, he in fact means that all lives – including black lives – matter.
And I’m not aware of anyone who fails to so specify when asked, so I infer it.
(emphasis added)
Oookay… So, I stipulate that I haven’t been around here very long, relatively speaking, but I feel like I’ve been around long enough to have made the observation that this course of action is not a particularly fruitful one. I don’t think I’ve ever seen an intelligent, well-articulated, reasonable argument that involved any tenets that resembled, “I believe doorhinge.”
I could be persuaded otherwise, I guess – but anyone I’ve seen saying it here seems willing to specify that, yeah, they mean “including black people.” If you’ve got a cite or something, I’m obviously all ears.
Well, hat certainly would put a sinister spin on those poll results I’ve seen, where most folks surveyed say it’s closer to their own views to say that all lives matter. 
Again, though, while I can supply you with folks who say all lives matter and mean “including black lives,” I’m awfully low on examples of the opposite.
Can you point me to any?
Also, with respect to the other claim in your post, they might say that they mean, “Oh yeah, black people, too”, but it doesn’t seem as though their actions are consistent with that claim.
Surprisingly, people aren’t willing to publicly go on the record and self-identify as racist.
Point you to whom, the people who come into my store on a daily basis? Shall I ask them to register on the Dope, so you can hear it straight from them, or would you prefer their telephone numbers? I’m not on social media, man: I’m not talking about eggs on Twitter, I’m talking about people that get in my actual face.