“all lives matter” is a reaction from misinterpreting “black lives matter” as “only black lives matter”, rather than its real declaration of “black lives matter too”.
that’s why “all lives matter”, well-intentioned as it may be, is an issue.
It would be lovely if everyone took the time to explain that as nicely as you. Thanks!
It’s not nearly as present in discourse as it used to be, but it wasn’t too long ago that it felt like so many people had internalized the idea that saying “all lives matter” was 100%, no room for nuance, a dogwhistle for racist people who somehow really meant “white lives are the only lives that matter”. Maybe it was for some racist assholes.
I just felt like focusing on any one skin color was limiting. I wasn’t against BLM, I wanted even more!
I’d argue the “issue”/fault for the misinterpretation lies squarely in the poor wording of “black lives matter”. You can’t blame people for misunderstanding what is, objectively, a very vague message.
Not only is “black lives matter” vague, but its whole impetus, police brutality, isn’t even present in that phrase. You’re supposed to just magically know it’s about police treatment of black people.
“all lives matter” is a reaction from misinterpreting “black lives matter” as “only black lives matter”, rather than its real declaration of “black lives matter too”.
that’s why “all lives matter”, well-intentioned as it may be, is an issue.
It would be lovely if everyone took the time to explain that as nicely as you. Thanks!
It’s not nearly as present in discourse as it used to be, but it wasn’t too long ago that it felt like so many people had internalized the idea that saying “all lives matter” was 100%, no room for nuance, a dogwhistle for racist people who somehow really meant “white lives are the only lives that matter”. Maybe it was for some racist assholes.
I just felt like focusing on any one skin color was limiting. I wasn’t against BLM, I wanted even more!
It’s not. It was always meant as a dismissal of the movement, nothing more.
I’d argue the “issue”/fault for the misinterpretation lies squarely in the poor wording of “black lives matter”. You can’t blame people for misunderstanding what is, objectively, a very vague message.
Not only is “black lives matter” vague, but its whole impetus, police brutality, isn’t even present in that phrase. You’re supposed to just magically know it’s about police treatment of black people.
Or you could, you know, ask people what they mean when they say it…