An Interesting Review of the Current Protests In America

What is it about this slogan, that is, the slogan, "black lives matter", that leads people to motivate themselves to either react angrily or articulate the following slogan or counter-narrative, namely that "all lives matter", via written language or oral language?

And:

What is it about this slogan, namely that, "all lives matter", that leads those who believe that black lives matter, to motivate themselves to articulate the following slogan, that is, that "black lives matter", in the presence of those who articulate the following slogan, that is, that "black lives matter"?

Here's partly what I think:

The fact is this irrespective of how you feel, the two slogans are obviously true.
This is why I nearly laughed when a black person stated the following, namely, no!, and that black lives matter, after a police officer stated the following, that is, that "All lives matter".

Now, it is apparent that if the person who negated this slogan, that is, that all lives matter, with a no response believes that not all lives matter, then there's no reason in terms of why, someone cannot believe that "black lives do not matter", and therefore that person's response was clearly counterproductive to the cause. However, I do not believe that the person was conscious when she negated the slogan all lives matter. On the contrary, the person stated that as a result of the way some of them have been conditioned to respond, particularly when they hear the slogan "all lives matter".Furthermore, the reason they've been conditioned to respond like that is that they want people to prioritize the slogan "black lives matter" above any other slogan, particularly because they want people to focus on a specific problem. The slogan all lives matter cannot be perceived as a slogan pertaining to a specific problem but a general problem.

Hence the hostility people who use the slogan all lives matter have met, especially when they use such a slogan in a BLM protest.

I understand this! But I do not condone the violence that has been inflicted on those who used the all lives slogan, even though it is a truth that was spoken without good judgement and discernment.
The reason I stated the following, namely that they spoke the truth without good judgement and discernment was because they spoke the truth at an inappropriate time.

Not only that! For it was often spoken with an angry tone of voice. However, if you speak the truth with an angry tone of voice, it will be rejected or met with hostility. Hence the violent resistant they often encountered even though this is obviously true on grounds of equality before the law, namely that the lives of all law-abiding citizens truly matter.

This is why I often state the following in my posts, that is to say, that the truth has to be articulated with love, discernment, good judgement, and an appropriate time of voice if you want people to accept it, particularly because if you articulate it at the wrong time, or in the wrong place, and with a destructive or angry tone of voice, it will be rejected or you may be subject to violence despite the following, that is to say, that it is the truth. However, if you make a distinction between the appropriate time to articulate the truth via written language or language and the inappropriate time to do so, this will most likely be the case, that is to say, that you protect your self from angry people, or the truth will be happily received by people because it will be pleasant to them. Therefore people cultivate the intellectual virtue of discernment in themselves if they want the truth to be accepted or if they want to safeguard themselves.

Now, as I stated earlier on, I understand why the respective slogans have lead people to create more divisions and hostility even though the slogans are obviously true. However, I can never empathize with people who have been conditioned to respond in a hostile fashion against those who use the slogan all lives matter and in order to keep the spotlight on another slogan, even though their action is indicative of the following, namely that they do not believe that all lives matter, even though they claim to believe this because it is not only counter-productive but also logically nonsensical.I believe those who promote the slogan, black lives matter, really believe that all lives matter; however they act as if it does not, particularly because they do not want the spotlight to be removed from black lives. However, by acting or responding against the slogan, all lives matter, they've contracted their belief. Every contradictory belief is logically nonsensical. Therefore those who behave like that have a logically nonsensical belief.

This is the trap they've set for themselves by means of that conditioning. But one can free themselves from a psychological trap or such manipulations of the mind if they recognize the trap and if they re-condition themselves. Therefore if they desire to act in a way that is consistent with their belief they must recognize the psychological manipulation and trap or they must seek other ways to keep the spotlight on the slogan, black lives matter.

Next:

Those who believe the following slogan, all lives matter, need to understand that the rational and egalitarian aspect of the BLM movement already know this.
I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
Furthermore, those who believe that all lives matter need to understand this, namely that they know this even though they've often contradicted this. Nevertheless, I understand your problem.
Your problem is as follows, namely that you've taken the slogan, black lives matter, out of its appropriate context or you've perceived it without its appropriate context.

Next,

I believe that some of you did this unwittingly. And I believe that some of you did it intentionally.
In other words, you've done so because you do not understand that the slogan belongs in the following context, namely that some black people believe that the system allegedly unjustly kills more black people than whites, and therefore the focus should be on those who are killed and not those who are unjustly killed, because their lives, and not the lives of those who are not being unjustly killed, should matter, relative to the allegedly unjust system.

This is why BLM is only focusing on the slogan, black lives matter, even though they obviously believe that all lives matter or despite this, namely that their followers have often contradicted the belief.

Now,

If you know this, and yet you are using the other slogan to insinuate division, or the following impression in the minds of the unconscious, namely that the slogan, black lives matter, somehow implies that not all lives matter, then you are a dishonest and divisive person.
Finally,
All lives matter. But this is not the case RELATIVE to racial equality before the law.
Why?

Here's why:

1.) All human beings are equal before the law.
2.) If all humans beings are equal before the law, then all humans have the same rights before the law.
3.) Black people and white people are humans.
Hence

4.) black people and white people have the same rights before the law.
5.) The right to be protected by police officers etc is a right.
And subsequently

6.) black people and white people have the right to be protected by police officers etc
And yet

7.) very people who have an obligation to uphold their rights are only upholding the rights of white people even though they have the same rights before the law. Or they are violating it.
Therefore

8.) although white people have the same rights before the law in principle, this is not necessarily the case in practice.

This is why the BLM civil movement emerged.

It emerged to address the problem of inequality of the law and to campaign against an unjust system or against a system that acts as if black lives do not matter.
This is the context that the slogan, black lives matter, should be understood in. For if you understand it in this context, then there's no reason to remind anyone else that all lives matter in that context because such a slogan is irrelevant in a context where white lives are treated with dignity whilst the rights of ethnic minorities who have the same rights are treated without dignity.