1524
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2026
1524 points (100.0% liked)
People Twitter
10325 readers
2206 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major celebrity, figure or any politician. If you replace the "x" at their site with xcancel (so it beomes xcancel.com), and you're not on mobile, it will save video. https://web.archive.org/save is another great option. Archive.is is no longer recommended because they remove/alter content.
- If a tweet (or similar) makes a statement of fact, either mark it as "satire" in the body or provide the original source link backing up the statement
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I know this is just emphasizing it but I don’t know how anyone saw “white lives matter” as anything other than anti-black rhetoric.
Like, I can believe that a genuinely ignorant but well-intentioned liberal thought “all lives matter” was valid because they were more concerned with being nice than real justice, but “white lives matter” could never be anything other than racist.
All Lives Matter is a perfectly fine position to have, just like thinking that all genders should be treated equally.
The problem is when you try to use that position to say that people aren't allowed to focus on systemic violence against a specific demographic.
"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.
"All Lives Matter" is a dishonest racist dogwhistle every time it's used. The fact that all lives matter goes without saying -- literally, it doesn't need to be said. It is not a neutral/symmetrical response to "Black Lives Matter" because "black lives matter" actually does need to be said!
Not every time. I believe that all lives matter, and that the BLM movement is perfectly valid.
I believe that all genders should be treated equally and that the feminist movement is valid as well.
And there are absolutely people who believe that in order to achieve "equality" one group has to be drug down and treated the way the marginalized group was. There are people who honestly believe it's impossible to be racist against white people, or that men can't be victims of sexism.
As I said, the problem is when you use your broad belief to say that others can't focus on a more specific one.
Sure, you believe that all lives matter, so does blm, but are you going to put that on a sign in the United States? Because in the US that phrase is practically exclusively used in response to blm, to dismiss black discrimination. It's not a phrase that can honestly be taken at face value
Believing it is one thing. Using it as a retort to someone saying "black lives matter" is entirely another.