Alright, enough of this. I've seen it too many times online. That's petty generalization and hypocritical stereotyping. The right isn't entirely made up of racist monsters looking to annihilate anyone who looks different, and the left isn't entirely made up of anti-freedom beasts seeking to end lives when convenient while hiding their beliefs under a mask of kindness. I am a conservative, but this is a childish squabble to have in the first place. Both groups of "people" exist, but neither make up the majority of their party.
To the point of the post- ALM is not an organization as much as an ideal- to point out the fact that African-American hardships are not exactly as horrible as depicted and that everyone has their problems. There are many injustices against African-Americans. But as leftists have been so quick to point out, Hispanics as well. Asians too. This would imply that there are injustices towards every race, as those three races make up a hell of a lot of the world's population. Caucasian happens to be a race. It is next to entirely inconceivable that there is not a single injustice posed against people of white skin. BLM, on the other hand, puts a skewed view on things- that the world is against people of one color, and that those people deserve special treatment.
Newsflash.
They're still just people.
The person who created ALM cannot be imagined as racist- for one, because, well, we don't know who he is. Secondly, because the name is literally "All Lives Matter". How, and please explain, how can this be racist, if it is implying that every single person, regardless of color, background, or sex, is equal? Furthermore, given the fact that ALM is indisputably not a racist term, what evidence is there that "Black Lives Matter" is not a racist statement, as it puts emphasis on one specific race, and fronts an organization that refuses to see eye to eye with anyone who disagrees with the statement that black injustices are greater than all others entirely due to race? How would I be wrong if I compared BLM to a reverse (markedly less violent) Ku Klux Klan, or considered it a "black supremacist" movement? Both would apply, as it puts focus on one race, pushing its desire for superiority to the forefront of publicity.
This is not meant to carry a tone of hostility. I am simply promoting deliberation.
Please, just remain civil as much as you can. I could not ask you more. I hate animosity.