[user104658]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Now i know that you know that that is an incredibly bad comparison.

To anybody who first comes accross these two slogans when you read or hear them what do you think the first reactions are going to be in their mind?
I would opine that they are something very close to this:

Slogan - Votes for women. First reaction: 'oh can't women vote?'

Slogan - Black lives matter. First reaction: 'well yeah obviously,All lives matter'

You see 'votes for women' is self explanatory.Nothing more needs to be said.The slogan tells you that women don't have the vote already.
'Black lives matter' tells you nothing except possibly somebody thinks that black lives somehow seem to matter more than everyone else or why would it be said?
It's not until you research what Black Lives Matter is and get some context that you understand what they(some of them) are trying to say.
Simply adding 'too' to the end of that slogan would have the same impact as 'Votes for women'.It would immediately tell you that BLM are telling you that they believe they are oppressed.
Now i know you are intelligent and i know that you know the different connotations that these slogans imply so i was reluctant to type out all of this.
Whoever created the BLM slogan either knew that it would cause controversy and confusion and did it deliberately OR they were totally naive.I would bet of the former.

I think we simply disagree on this one NM; I think the obvious response to the slogan "Black Lives Matter" would be "Oh... Do some people believe that black lives don't matter or matter less?".

By your logic, it's just as valid to assume that someone politically completely unaware would see a "votes for women!" banner and say, "Hey, why only women??". What you're pointing out is that people were not naive to the context; they knew that it was just women who didn't have the vote. There is nothing IN the message that explains the context, it is assumed as "known".

Exactly the same should apply with Black Lives Matter. Taken in political context, the "too" should easily be implied and the argument that people are getting it wrong "because they are naive to the situation" and don't know that BLM is protesting an inequality is dubious at best. I just don't think it's the case. There is no widespread misunderstanding of the message that needs fixing, those who don't like hearing BLM simply have a problem with the statement full stop, and the supposed "misunderstanding" is a strawman,for the mostpart.

In my opinion adding "... too" is not a simple solution at all. It makes the statement sound like a whine and dilutes it's impact. It takes the power out of it. Definitely not worth it for the (very few) who might be failing to understand the message.