"All Lives Matter" detracts from the necessity of "Black Lives Matter"

The argument

When we say "Black Lives Matter" we are not implying that White lives, Animal lives, Jewish lives, or any other lives matter any less. What is meant by BLM is that Black lives matter As well, in the face of a system which actively oppresses Black people. Whilst liberation will be achieved only through co-operation and understanding the inter-relation of our struggles, we must acknowledge the struggles of our Black communities as distinct and support them with what ever specific challenges that they may face

Context

"All Lives Matter" is used as a counter to the statement "Black Lives Matter," a phrase coined to bring light and awareness to the widespread issues of systemic racism and police brutality in the law enforcement complex. Most often its intent stretches only as far as its words: that all lives matter rather than just black lives. This detracts from the purpose of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Those who defend saying 'All Lives Matter' respond that the phrase, taken at face value, asserts the equal worth of every life — a principle few would reject — and that many who use it intend affirmation, not erasure, of the value of Black lives. On this view, ruling the phrase impermissible reads a hostile meaning into words that need not carry it and polices intent, treating a universalist statement as necessarily an attack. Critics of the argument also note a tension: if 'Black Lives Matter' does not imply other lives matter less, as the body insists, it is not obvious why affirming that all lives matter must imply Black lives matter less — the alleged 'detraction' depends on reading the second slogan as a deliberate rebuttal to the first rather than as an independent, if poorly-timed, assertion. Defenders of the movement reply that context and timing make 'All Lives Matter' function as a dismissal in practice; but that is a claim about how the phrase is used, not a demonstration that the words themselves are impermissible to say.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] If 'Black Lives Matter' does not imply other lives matter less, it is not clear why 'All Lives Matter' must imply Black lives matter less; the alleged detraction reads a hostile intent into a universalist phrase. [Rejecting P3] That 'All Lives Matter' can function dismissively in context is a claim about usage and timing, not a demonstration that the words themselves are impermissible to say.