Isn't "All Lives Matter" similarly calling for an end to violence?
Not really. As a specific slogan intentionally referencing another slogan, it's defined in relation to the other one.
Thus, it is primarily a denial of the fact that the issues disproportionately affect black people. (Or minorities in general, depending on the context.)
I really don't think that "assuming meaning from what is not said" belongs in the same category as "pointing out a recognized slogan" at all, but if your hypothesis is that there are parallels here, maybe you should rethink what those would be.
When someone mentions victims in Gaza but not in Israel,
if there is any intent relating to who is more affected, that intent would be to acknowledge the fact that more people are dying and suffering in Gaza than in Israel.
Surely a person merely saying "All Lives Matter" couldn't possibly be suspected of racism. That would never happen.
It is racist, but even with that being true you still can't automatically assume that anyone who says it outright supports racist violence.
("Blue lives matter", on the other hand, basically does mean something like that.)
As I mentioned earlier in the same post you just partially quoted -
As you know, replying to every part of a post typically requires considerably more time and effort than the original post did.
But I'll do it this time.
after the most horrific massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, featuring multiple gang rapes, torture, infanticide, and kidnapping, Thunberg was only and explicitly "standing with Gaza in solidarity with Palestine," in total disregard for the Israeli victims.
Disregard for those not mentioned, or focus on those that are mentioned?
Do you think as negatively of those who mention Israeli victims but not Palestinian ones?
She wouldn't even SAY Israelis. Not even in her second, "clarifying" message would she say it.
The one where she said "We are of course against any type of discrimination, and condemn antisemitism in all forms and shapes. This is non-negotiable."
But in your view that's still bad because she didn't say the specific thing you wanted?
They cannot be worthy of sympathy. If their lives exist, it is only within an "all". Maybe.
This is utterly baseless.
Her message was clueless, soulless, and hurtful. That is the story.
I brought it up to note the
reactions to her message, so aside from
being an example, your comments directly on her words (or lack of words) are an "even if you were right it wouldn't make me wrong" tangent.
Also, please avoid using the word "soulless" to describe an autistic person.
You shouldn't be looking for a "gotcha!" in the responses from those who are literally still mopping up pieces of the dead.
You were the one who linked to it in a post whose subject was whether or not inaccurate accusations are being made.
And it required no specific "looking" to recognize that it
was one.
That's not a "gotcha", it's not even focus on a small detail at all; that article didn't even have a purpose other than "accuse anti-war voices of supporting the enemy".
Do you not see how extreme of a double standard this is? You're saying people who support Israel's actions should be given leeway even for extremist "with us or against us" jive, while anyone who's advocating for Palestine absolutely has to very specifically mention Israeli victims to not have the worst assumed of them?
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/NQW45QZSOZK3HAWM75V3VTKYAA.jpg)
