Apparently saying "all lives matter" is racist according to a BLM's co-founder.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Krouget

If you honestly believe all lives matter, you wouldn’t be splitting hairs over an implied “only” or “too”. Even if we were truly confused over its meaning, we live in an age where some explanation is a mobile or desktop screen away, meaning, we should have little issue clarifying the actual intent before condemning it for what it’s not.

But the hair I’m splitting isn’t an attack on folks who say Black Lives Matter, over whether there’s an implied “only” or an implied “too”.

It’s a defense of folks who say All Lives Matter: they’re being called racists for saying something that – well, we could easily clarify the intent, instead of condemning it for what it’s not – sure as you with the face seems to be inching there, with this latest post about how “I don’t doubt that there are some people who do say ALM without any ill-intent or willful obtuseness.” When such folks say it, there’s no implicit message to be picked up and dumped on; there’s just the explicit stuff.

You doubt that people are truly confused about whether Black Lives Matter implies an “only” or a “too” – but add that, if they are, it can be easily clarified. Why not let people who say that All Lives Matter easily clarify likewise? Some of them presumably say it without ill-intent or willful obtuseness, honestly believing that All Lives Matter.

(I don’t need to defend myself, you understand; I don’t post #AllLivesMatter tweets, or wave an All Lives Matter sign around, or wear an All Lives Matter shirt; I’m not one of the All Lives Matter crowd. I’m merely someone who needs to decide whether to call such people out for ill intent, or willful obtuseness, or straight-up racism. And, well, I don’t, because some of them genuinely mean it.)

Until and unless I hear some clarification to the contrary, I figure that people who say Black Lives Matter are implying a “too”. Until and unless I hear some clarification to the contrary, I figure people who say All Lives Matter are – well, not implying, really, but just flatly stating that, y’know, all lives matter.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@you_with_the_face

We weren’t even talking about ALM until BLM entered the stage; that’s your first clue that it’s acting as a rebuttable rather a neutral statement of fact.

Interestingly, there’s a piece up today on Slate making the opposite point: that “there were people carrying ‘All Lives Matter’ signs at the first BLM action I went to. They were there in support of BLM. They didn’t disagree with other marchers – or if they did, it was over the appropriateness of using that phrase to support the BLM cause.”

If all he wanted to say is that “black lives matter” = “black lives matter, too”, he could have said that without all the background on his life experiences. Instead of an essay, he could submitted a four-sentence paragraph and been over and done with it. So clearly, since he did not do that, a smart reader can infer the reason he provided his anecdotes was to drive home the message that “black lives matter” = “black lives aren’t being treated like they matter and that is why ‘BLM’ is cromulent, please get over yourself”.

But since he also threw in the over-and-done-with-it explanation, putting TOO in all capital letters, he made it so nothing needs to be inferred. He could have done either; he did both. Folks who say All Lives Matter can also throw in both an over-and-done explanation, and further reasoning, if they want to clarify that, yes, they in fact mean what they say and aren’t implying anything untoward.

I don’t doubt that there are some people who do say ALM without any ill-intent or willful obtuseness.

Well, then, the debate’s over, I guess.

[Urbanredneck]

After reading the person at the table analogy, I get Black Lives Matter.

What they are saying is that they do not feel they are getting a share of the pie. Certainly black celebrities dont see this because they are “in”.

Its almost embarrassing at work because most of the managers and people with the better paying jobs are white or hispanic and the black workers have the lowest jobs. I partially chalk that up to the crappy Kansas City Missouri school system which doesnt set them up for any kind of real career.

But what to do about it? I dont know. I know some companies will hire a black person into a job over more classified white workers which causes a big problem but what else is there to do? It can take years to build up the resume for some top jobs.

[you_with_the_face]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

It’s a defense of folks who say All Lives Matter: they’re being called racists for saying something that – well, we could easily clarify the intent, instead of condemning it for what it’s not – sure as you with the face seems to be inching there, with this latest post about how “I don’t doubt that there are some people who do say ALM without any ill-intent or willful obtuseness.” ** When such folks say it, there’s no implicit message to be picked up and dumped on**; there’s just the explicit stuff.

There is always an implicit message behind everything we say. Context, tone, the accompaniment with other messages that say a certain thing…all these shape the meaning of what is being communicated. All the time. Which is why so many think negatively about ALM despite the slogan being uncontroversial on the surface.

There is no such thing as “just the explicit stuff”. Outside of the mind of a person with severe Asperger’s, that is simply not the way language works.

That said, people with severe Asperger’s are the only ones who get a pass from me on not adequately parsing BLM at this point.

[joyfool]

@Asimovian

I think your wording here suggests an effort to stay within the rules, but ultimately, saying that people remind you of simpletons and liars is really the same thing as calling them simpletons and liars. Let’s not go there.

I apologize. I did think that was okay, but I’ll refrain from tenuous connections in the future.

@TriPolar

What about people who don’t know what cisgender means? Should they be demeaned for not knowing the meaning of word recently made up that makes no sense to anyone until it’s defined for them?

Of course not. Simply not knowing something is nothing to be ashamed or derided for. However, unlike the BLM movement, cisgender might not be self-evident, so a definition may be in order to understand. This isn’t the case here though. Everyone does get it, they’re just pedantically pretending not to.

[Krouget]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

But the hair I’m splitting isn’t an attack on folks who say Black Lives Matter, over whether there’s an implied “only” or an implied “too”.

But in entirely too many cases, that’s exactly what it is. If you want to be taken at face value, then I’m informing you of the minefield you’re walking into, because it’s a highly sensitive situation that’s deeper than a few misunderstandings around the perimeter.

You doubt that people are truly confused about whether Black Lives Matter implies an “only” or a “too” – but add that, if they are, it can be easily clarified.

Yes, because the fix for confusion is education, as YWTF stated. On a topic this sensitive, why wouldn’t you seek clarification on a position, before you counter it with an equally ambiguous phrase (to remain consistent with your logic)?

Why not let people who say that All Lives Matter easily clarify likewise? Some of them presumably say it without ill-intent or willful obtuseness, honestly believing that All Lives Matter.

Probably because they started saying it when they heard someone else say BLM, and to most with even contemporary knowledge, they primarily understand it to represent a criticism of the BLM label and actions behinds the social movement. If ALM folks were first to the hashtags with #AllLivesMatter, or took a position which more empathized with these struggling communities, the reception would be different…but that’s not what’s happening. What’s happening is an entirely pointless indulgence in semantics. When people are willing to press a non-issue this hard (that is, the focus on the black vs all, instead of lives mattering), it often betrays their position.

Until and unless I hear some clarification to the contrary, I figure that people who say Black Lives Matter are implying a “too”. Until and unless I hear some clarification to the contrary, I figure people who say All Lives Matter are – well, not implying, really, but just flatly stating that, y’know, all lives matter.

So then they’re allies, right? As someone said, Black Lives Matter is the movement, All Lives Matter is the goal. What’s the obstacle?

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@you_with_the_face

There is always an implicit message behind everything we say. Context, tone, the accompaniment with other messages that say a certain thing…all these shape the meaning of what is being communicated.

Aw, c’mon, you: you just got through saying that you don’t doubt that some people say All Lives Matter without any ill-intent or willful ignorance. This might be the most important moment of your life; don’t back away from it, just note that sometimes people simply say stuff like that without an implicit message behind it.

There is no such thing as “just the explicit stuff”. Outside of the mind of a person with severe Asperger’s, that is simply not the way language works.

Of course it is! People make such statements routinely! You’re doing it in this very post that I’m replying to! You make your plainspoken points in straightforward fashion, and then add the following sentence: “Which is why so many think negatively about ALM despite the slogan being in controversial on the surface.”

I know what that sentence says on the surface. Help me out, here: does it also carry some other implicit statement? Or is it just doing a workmanlike job of expressing your point explicitly?

“I’m not saying this derisively, just matter-of-factly.” What, was there an implicit message that was derisive and wasn’t matter-of-fact? Or were you simply explicit?

[you_with_the_face]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Aw, c’mon, you: you just got through saying that you don’t doubt that some people say All Lives Matter without any ill-intent or willful ignorance. This might be the most important moment of your life; don’t back away from it, just note that sometimes people simply say stuff like that without an implicit message behind it.

I’m not backing away from anything, so I don’t know what you mean. I don’t doubt that there is some fraction of the population who says ALM without any ill-intent or ignorance. Read my last post and you’ll see me acknowledging people with Asperger’s, right? Folks with this condition probably evoke “All Lives Matters” in a baggage-free manner that is consistent with their hyperliteral way of communicating about things.

Of course it is! People make such statements routinely! You’re doing it in this very post that I’m replying to! You make your plainspoken points in straightforward fashion, and then add the following sentence: “Which is why so many think negatively about ALM despite the slogan being in controversial on the surface.”

And you better believe my posts are dripping with implicit messages as well. You may not be picking up on these messages (in fact, I know you’re not), but that doesn’t mean they aren’t there.

I know what that sentence says on the surface. Help me out, here: does it also carry some other implicit statement? Or is it just doing a workmanlike job of expressing your point explicitly?

The explicit message is shaped by the context, tone, and accompanying messages that contribute meaning implicitly. The very fact that the sentence fragment you’re inquiring about refers back to the previous sentences (“Which is why…”) makes this self-evident. It ain’t even a complete thought when taken out of context!

“I’m not saying this derisively, just matter-of-factly.” What, was there an implicit message that was derisive and wasn’t matter-of-fact? Or were you simply explicit?

Yes.

[Reluctant_A]

Mileage may vary on whether it is “hard line” racist to say “All Lives Matter.” But, from my point of view, there certainly appears to be a strong element of “Shut up, darkie” to it.

[monstro]

@Reluctant_A

Mileage may vary on whether it is “hard line” racist to say “All Lives Matter.” But, from my point of view, there certainly appears to be a strong element of “Shut up, darkie” to it.

From my point of view, I hear “Stop talking about all this uncomfortable racial stuff! Why can’t everyone just be happy like I am?”

[Corry_El]

@you_with_the_face

No he’s not expressing the same sentiment. The people who counter BLM by saying All Lives Matter are expressing an implicit message that is not equivalent to saying Black Lives Matter, Too. What ALM is expressing is “Black people need to stop focusing attention on how black people are being harmed by LEO, because this is not a problem worth highlighting as much as other things.” Other things like:

1. Black-on-black crime. Because we apparently haven’t talked about this phenomenon at all even though it’s pretty much all we talk about when the subject of urban crime comes up, which is pretty much constantly.
2. Coming up with less racist/more precise/more inclusive hashtags other than ‘Black Lives Matter’ " As if the need for wordsmithing is the one thing keeping cops from locking us up and shooting us all the time, yup.
3. Pulling up their saggy pants and getting an education already. As if the clothes we wear and the number of degrees we can take credit for will make us immune from profiling, harassment, unlawful stops, and police brutality.
4. Not sassing police when all they have to do is do what the officer tells them to do, even at the expense of their civil liberties. As if black people aren’t entitled to civil liberties in the first place; as if compliance in the face of abuse doesn’t enable it to continue; as if the judicial system is the panacea for cops who conspire against citizens.
5. Making sure their protests don’t inconvenience people who might otherwise be sympathetic to their cause but don’t like being stuck on the highway for hours at a time. As if the whole point of a protest isn’t to shake people out of their comfort zones, to raise awareness of how a subset of the population is routinely “inconvenienced” by abusive policing.

But none of that list of things is racist, with the clarifications/adjustments below, IMO.

1. Some people talk about black on black crime all the time, some probably put too much emphasis on it. But it seems to me BLM is in part shaped around talking about dealing with the overall black/non-black race problem with as little emphasis as possible on the black crime rate, as a counter to real or imagined over emphasis on that problem, and/or to avoid a glib conclusion of ‘own fault’. Unjust killings by the police by definition can’t be the victims’ own fault. But BLM backers can’t be surprised if others are puzzled why the vast majority of black lives lost to murder, victims of black non-police officers, are almost never mentioned by BLM.
2. The actual topic here AIUI is whether saying ‘ALM’ is racist, not whether BLM needs another name. But as a matter of practical politics the need to employ nuance in understanding a simple name, what it means wrt to non-black lives, why it focuses so little on black lives lost to black murderers, and especially the claim that people who don’t accept the ‘correct’ nuanced meaning are racists, is a problem in building a true consensus behind BLM, IMO.
3. If anyone would claim that a particular African American is immune to unjustified killing by the police as long as their own behavior is exemplary, then that’s disprovable using multiple examples. However whether the general statistics, rate of killings of African Americans by police per capita v other groups is affected by differences in criminal behavior patterns is a different issue. That’s not easily disprovable.
4. Likewise resisting arrest can be a factor in killings by the police, as it apparently was in the case which spawned the current movement, the killing of Michael Brown. But of course people (especially just some people) shouldn’t surrender their civil rights.
5. It is illegal in most places to obstruct people going about their business by blocking roads. Such laws have not been found unconstitutional. These laws often haven’t been enforced, and that naturally creates potential for perceived unfairness if they are again enforced. But if a protest is blocking a highway people need to get about their legitimate business, the protesters should be instructed to move and arrested (with the minimum force necessary) if they refuse. BLM, Cliven Bundy type anti-federal govt, or anybody else.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@you_with_the_face

I’m not backing away from anything, so I don’t know what you mean. I don’t doubt that there is some fraction of the population who says ALM without any ill-intent or ignorance. Read my last post and you’ll see me acknowledging people with Asperger’s, right? Folks with this condition probably evoke “All Lives Matters” in a baggage-free manner that is consistent with their hyperliteral way of communicating about things.

Well, that’s a baby step for you, anyway; you started by explicitly insisting that there’s always an implicit message behind everything we say, but can acknowledge that folks with a certain condition communicate in a hyperliteral way.

All that remains is for you to realize that normal people can and do communicate in a literal way likewise – explicitly expressing what they have in mind – and you’ll pretty much be there. A life of dealing with people who sometimes mean what they say awaits you! Sure, sometimes there’s going to be an implied message at odds with the literal meaning – but sometimes the straightforward claim will be sincere!

A pollster asks me who I plan to vote for – and I reply with a name! I ask how much a haircut costs – and the barber tells me! A driver needs directions – and I mundanely supply them! To you, this must all seem shot through with hidden meaning – but, in time, you’ll maybe realize, that, no, sometimes the surface suffices!

[Velocity]

I wonder if BLM activists would be as offended by a plethora of signs reading:

“Black Lives Matter.”
“White Lives Matter.”
“Hispanic Lives Matter.”
“Arab Lives Matter.”
“Asian Lives Matter.”
“Native American Lives Matter.” Etc. etc.
Same meaning as All Lives Matter, but different presentation.

[iiandyiiii]

@Velocity

I wonder if BLM activists would be as offended by a plethora of signs reading:

“Black Lives Matter.”
“White Lives Matter.”
“Hispanic Lives Matter.”
“Arab Lives Matter.”
“Asian Lives Matter.”
“Native American Lives Matter.” Etc. etc.
Same meaning as All Lives Matter, but different presentation.

What would be the purpose of such a display? Just to minimize the significance or legitimacy of BLM?

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Krouget

Yes, because the fix for confusion is education, as YWTF stated. On a topic this sensitive, why wouldn’t you seek clarification on a position, before you counter it with an equally ambiguous phrase (to remain consistent with your logic)?

Well, again, I’m not the one countering one phrase with another instead of seeking clarification; I’m saying, as per the OP, that I don’t assume the person who utters either phrase is a racist.

Probably because they started saying it when they heard someone else say BLM, and to most with even contemporary knowledge, they primarily understand it to represent a criticism of the BLM label and actions behinds the social movement. If ALM folks were first to the hashtags with #AllLivesMatter, or took a position which more empathized with these struggling communities, the reception would be different…but that’s not what’s happening. What’s happening is an entirely pointless indulgence in semantics. When people are willing to press a non-issue this hard (that is, the focus on the black vs all, instead of lives mattering), it often betrays their position.

But that works both ways: who are the people that “are willing to press a non-issue this hard (that is, the focus on the black vs all, instead of lives mattering)”: those who remark that All Lives Matter, or those who call them racists for doing so?

So then they’re allies, right? As someone said, Black Lives Matter is the movement, All Lives Matter is the goal. What’s the obstacle?

I don’t see one. If someone tells me that Black Lives Matter is the movement, and that All Lives Matter is the goal, and then waves a sign that says Black Lives Matter or a sign that says All Lives Matter, then I see no obstacle at all.

[you_with_the_face]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Well, that’s a baby step for you, anyway; you started by explicitly insisting that there’s always an implicit message behind everything we say, but can acknowledge that folks with a certain condition communicate in a hyperliteral way.

There is a implicit message behind everything we say, and that even includes people with Asperger’s. As long as their comments are uttered in the context of something bigger than the literal words coming out of their mouths, they are taking advantage of implicit communication.

All that remains is for you to realize that normal people can and do communicate in a literal way likewise…

Not as a rule, no they don’t.

A pollster asks me who I plan to vote for – and I reply with a name! I ask how much a haircut costs – and the barber tells me! A driver needs directions – and I mundanely supply them! To you, this must all seem shot through with hidden meaning – but, in time, you’ll maybe realize, that, no, sometimes the surface suffices!

If a pollster asks you whom you’re voting for, but they fail to identify themselves or their organization, they insist on taking down your name and address before explaining the purpose of the call, and their opening spiel contains talk about how thugs from the inner city, uncontrolled Hispanic immigration, and evil Muslims are killing our country, are you going to respond with the same amount of openness and calm as you would without all of this other stuff going on?

If you ask how much a haircut costs with a certain snideness in your voice (“how much does one of those costs?”), will your barber humor you with a polite response? Or will he likely be snide with you in return, because you communicated rudeness to him?

If a driver needs directions and they come to you crying in a blind panic, do you “mundanely” supply the same exact instructions you would if the driver was calm? Because a smart person would modify their response based on the stimulus provided. The panicky driver may not be able to absorb detailed and “mundanely” expressed instructions given their mental state. Ignoring this reality because you are only focused on what they say explicitly (“Where’s the closest hospital?”) cuts you off from effectively communicating with them.

By refusing to grok this, you only highlight the ridiculous lengths people have to go through to defend the continued use of ALM.

[you_with_the_face]

@Velocity

I wonder if BLM activists would be as offended by a plethora of signs reading:

“Black Lives Matter.”
“White Lives Matter.”
“Hispanic Lives Matter.”
“Arab Lives Matter.”
“Asian Lives Matter.”
“Native American Lives Matter.” Etc. etc.

Same meaning as All Lives Matter, but different presentation.

If the signs are raised as if to counter–rather than add to–what BLM activists are trying to highlight–then yes it makes sense they’d be offended.

If I went to a ball game and sat in the home bleachers with a sign cheering for another team (not even for the opposing team; just a random team of my choosing), would I not expect to raise some eyebrows? Would I not expect people to read antagonism into my behavior, even if just a little bit? Or should I insist that my stalwart support for the Braves in a middle of a Yankees vs. Cardinals game is perfectly earnest, innocent, and without any deeper meaning, and that its wrong for others to infer otherwise?

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@you_with_the_face

If a pollster asks you whom you’re voting for, but they fail to identify themselves or their organization, they insist on taking down your name and address before explaining the purpose of the call, and their opening spiel contains talk about how thugs from the inner city, uncontrolled Hispanic immigration, and evil Muslims are killing our country, are you going to respond with the same amount of openness and calm as you would without all of this other stuff going on?

But that’s just it: when a pollster recently asked me that, she didn’t preface it with an opening spiel about thugs and immigration and Muslims, and et cetera. Of course some statements are laden with implicit stuff; I’m merely saying that some explicit statements are straightforward mean-what-you-say ones.

If you ask how much a haircut costs with a certain snideness in your voice (“how much does one of those costs?”), will your barber humor you with a polite response? Or will he likely be snide with you in return, because you communicated rudeness to him?

Again, I agree that some interactions can be shot through with snideness and rudeness even though the actual words are blandly inoffensive. I merely add that, the last time I asked a barber that question, I didn’t bother to lace it with any subtext; I genuinely wanted to know, and the answer was polite and informative.

If a driver needs directions and they come to you crying in a blind panic, do you “mundanely” supply the same exact instructions you would if the driver was calm?

No. But I would mundanely supply them if the driver is calm, if nothing else seems to be in play. Because, as far as I can tell, sometimes nothing else is in play! Sometimes there’s more to it than meets the eye; but sometimes there’s not!

By refusing to grok this, you only highlight the ridiculous lengths people have to go through to defend the continued use of ALM.

But I do grok that, sometimes, there’s implied subtext to a statement. I merely note that, sometimes, there’s not – and, no, not just in the context of Asperger’s or whatever; in the context of someone calmly asking for directions, or a pollster who’s just doing her job, or a regular guy who sees no reason to get snide but genuinely wants to know the price of a haircut. Someone who says that All Lives Matter may well be as sincere as any of 'em, because people routinely say what they mean without sending some implied message that’s opposed to the express one.

Sure, they may be like unto a sinister push-pollster, or a snide customer, or someone in a blind panic – but I often interact with people who, uh, aren’t. Don’t you?

I’m not the one saying “never”. You’re the one saying “always”.

[you_with_the_face]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

But that’s just it: when a pollster recently asked me that, she didn’t preface it with an opening spiel about thugs and immigration and Muslims, and et cetera. Of course some statements are laden with implicit stuff; I’m merely saying that some explicit statements are straightforward mean-what-you-say ones.

The absence of provocative “spiels” is as informative as its presence. The pollster provided a context for her questions that communicated something altogether different than what the my hypothetical pollster did. But if we boil their questions down to the same explicit message (“Who are you voting for?”), they look identical. This even though the overall message they are communicating implicitly is not identical.

Again, I agree that some interactions can be shot through with snideness and rudeness even though the actual words are blandly inoffensive. I merely add that, the last time I asked a barber that question, I didn’t bother to lace it with any subtext; I genuinely wanted to know, and the answer was polite and informative.

Because you implicitly communicated genuine curiosity. With a slight change in tone, your inquiry turns into a rhetorical question that implies you think his services are overpriced, even though the words are literally the same.

No. But I would mundanely supply them if the driver is calm, if nothing else seems to be in play. Because, as far as I can tell, sometimes nothing else is in play! Sometimes there’s more to it than meets the eye; but sometimes there’s not!

The point is that you’re not assuming anything really; you’re picking up on cues from the person you’re talking to determine what is appropriate for communication. Saying it’s “more to it than meets the eye” misses the point. The eyes of normal people are capable of seeing the panicky person in front of them and intuitively understand that blithely rattling off a bunch of street names and turns and cardinal directions will confuse them, especially if they can’t write anything down because their hands are covered in blood. This is not a “hidden meaning”; this is putting two plus two together.

And honestly, so is this BLM vs ALM debate. Black people right now largely feel preyed upon by LEO in this country. The sense of desperation, anger, and hopelessness right now are an all-time high. Responding to these emotions with ALL LIVES MATTER is like telling the desperate person with a gunshot wound to turn left at the next light, then head northwest at the roundabout 3 miles down, take a slight right onto Peachtree Rd (is that drive??), then take another right at the Big Chicken, then…and that’s where you’ll find the hospital.

I’m not the one saying “never”. You’re the one saying “always”.

It’s “always” because it’s true. We can never communicate without implicit messages contributing to what others receive from us. I’m sorry you’re still having a hard time understanding this concept, but I’ve exhausted myself explaining this.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@you_with_the_face

Because you implicitly communicated genuine curiosity. With a slight change in tone, your inquiry turns into a rhetorical question that implies you think his services are overpriced, even though the words are literally the same.

But that’s my point: while it’s of course possible to convey a snide implication with literally the same words that on the surface merely indicate genuine curiosity, it’s also possible for a question to convey genuine curiosity.

I know full well how to imply something else with the same explicit words – and sometimes I do, and people react accordingly – but much of the time, I don’t bother to imply anything else, and, well, people react accordingly.

I’ve been the driver who calmly asked for directions; I genuinely wanted directions, and I got them. I’ve been the guy who calmly gets asked for directions; I obliged. I didn’t bother to lace my question or my answer with any subtext; I could have, but I saw no reason to bother. And, as far as I could tell, the other guy was equally sincere and likewise didn’t bother to imply anything other than what was being said.

It’s “always” because it’s true. We can never communicate without implicit messages contributing to what others receive from us.

Well, look, I often – not always, but often – deal with people as if they simply mean what they say; and I often do so by explicitly saying things with no other implicit meaning, at which point they often react as if I simply mean what I say.

Sure, sometimes that’s not the case; but sometimes it is. I know that’s often true on my side of the conversation; and, since they typically react as if they’d likewise meant what they’d said, it’s as if unproblematic communication had taken place as per explicit words with the implied subtext of “no, just those explicit words.”

I’m sorry you’re still having a hard time understanding this concept, but I’ve exhausted myself explaining this.

Well, right back at you. Just know that if a handsome man ever sounds like he means it when he calmly and politely asks you for directions, you may well be talking to me, and I may well have no implied subtext; I’ve been known to ask that question with mere sincerity – and if you’re going to explicitly reply with an accurate answer, there’s no need for you to also throw in some implicit message.

People manage it every day.