Read on Twitter
The phrase "black lives matter" suffers from, as @EricRWeinstein says, semantic overload. Does it mean:
1. The perfectly inarguable idea that black lives are of equal value to all other lives?
2. The belief that the US is systemically racist?
3. Agreement with BLM organization?
1. The perfectly inarguable idea that black lives are of equal value to all other lives?
2. The belief that the US is systemically racist?
3. Agreement with BLM organization?
Disintegrationists wish to conflate these ideas, then separate from whichever aspect is least palatable during a given conversation. If you say you agree with (1) but not (2), which most people do, then they will say you don't agree that black lives matter.
If you castigate (3) for being radical and neo-Marxist, which the organization is, you will be told that's not what the phrase means.
The essence of the argument is over (2), but the phrase "AMERICA IS SYSTEMICALLY RACIST" could not earn support in the same way as the purposefully vague "black lives matter" terminology. Which is why Disintegrationists insist on obscuring what the hell they're talking about.
