*Obviously* all lives matter. But not all lives have been *treated* like they matter for centuries, so we focus on the ones that are in crisis. The burning house metaphor puts it simply: if there were two houses next to each other, and only one of them was on fire, would you stand there talking about how both houses are important? Would you hold the firefighter back from putting out the fire because it’s “unfair” that the burning house was getting all of the attention, or “special treatment”? Of course not. It makes perfect sense in these terms, but when it’s “about race” people get uncomfortable, defensive, and avoidant. This suggests to me that people don’t see that the house is burning (despite it being a fact that Black Americans are disproportionately harmed in a number of ways). In general, slogans for social movements need to be as specific as possible to get anything done. There are a million social issues to be tackled, concerning all the different “lives”, but if we put them all under the same umbrella, the efforts would be too scattered to accomplish anything significant. “Black Lives Matter” has never been used to mean that no other lives matter, or that they matter less. But All Lives Matter rhetoric, regardless of intention, distracts from the goals and causes an unnecessary rift in the general public at a time when we need all hands on deck.

The Black Lives Matter Movement is a political movement in response to police brutality and the racially motivated violence and killing towards black people. - What the All Lives Matter rhetoric does is fail to recognise that it is black lives that are currently being unfairly targeted and subsequently not receiving justice. It is an ignorant statement to say in the face of what is going on in the world right now. - No one is denying the fact that all life is valuable or claiming that black lives are more important. However, what we are seeing is a persistent targeting of black people from George Floyd, Tamir Rice and Breonna Taylor. - To say all lives matter in the face of Black Lives Matter disvalues the lives of those lost simply because of the colour of their skin.

**“All Lives Matter” is a deeply divisive slogan but understanding why is vital to overcoming its assumptions.** • This rhetoric has developed as a result of the common practice to respond to [‘Black Lives Matter’]( https://www.vox.com/2016/7/11/12136140/black-all-lives-matter) with the argument that [‘All Lives Matter’](https://www.vox.com/2016/7/11/12136140/black-all-lives-matter). Ultimately, this attitude is because of misinformation and a lack of understanding about what BLM really stands for. • There is an assumption, that saying _‘Black Lives Matter’_ is an attempt to promote the interests of Black lives over all others, which is completely inaccurate. BLM is not about anyone’s lives being more important, but rather aims to highlight the fact that huge inequality currently exists as a result of racism and violence against Black people. • This is particularly true in the United States at the moment, where BLM is gaining more and more recognition by attempting to highlight the _systemic racism_ that facilitates _police brutality_. The infamous [murder of George Floyd]( https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/why-shouldnt-say-all-lives-matter-a4456686.html), by a police officer in May 2020, sparked BLM protests all over America. Those responding to these protests with the rebuttal that _‘All Lives Matter’_, were effectively downplaying the legitimate experiences of the Black community. • Therefore, by saying _‘All Lives Matter’_, many think this detracts and diminishes the valid claims of [racial injustice]( https://theconversation.com/why-is-it-so-offensive-to-say-all-lives-matter-153188) experienced by a huge proportion of the Black community. It is argued that this is harmful, because to be silent is to be complicit. In other words, to deny the existence of racial injustice, is to obstruct progress to achieving equality.