@clousems said in #49:
> Disengaging-- I've seen how these conversations go.
>
> (But, if you're going where I think you're trying to go, you should realize that your attempt to lead me down that path is flawed by the fact that your inevitable "aha!" moment would be predicated on a) the idea that ALM would by necessity be wholly altruistic and well intentioned, and b) all people who believe in the fundamental value of life would become racist by the end of it. This is because you switched which concept is being considered an indicator).
You're smart in that there indeed was an inevitable aha moment, but not so smart that you could predict correctly what it was.
The inevitable aha moment is that one can very well be racist and yet use a NAME which is, by itself, truthful.
It follows that, from then on, referring to "all life matters", depending on the context, can either be truthful or refer to a racist movement (as you correctly noticed, there is a switch of concept going on here).
The same reasoning of course applies to the NAME "straight pride". This was the content of my post #15, which you felt the need to contradict (maybe you missed the important bit: "in reaction to". I did not claim that ALL the people who have ever stated that all life matters in SOME situation are racist).