Let's just ignore Onision's horrible understanding of argumentation, and jump right into the discussion.
I’d say that most people categorically agree that all lives matter. The BLM movement is addressing specific issues, not attempting to say that ONLY black lives matter, or that black lives matter more, rather that black lives are facing a particular pressure within society (especially North American society) and that that is what needs addressing.
Of course the term may seem confusing and antagonistic at first for someone unaware of the situation or of the implicit bias against black people that exists in our society (especially in North America), and this is excusable the first time - not everyone instantly has access to all the pertinent information. Neither should anyone instantly accept a new idea just because a majority says that doing so is what is right - critical thought and introspection should always be applied when attempting to understand a situation that you are unfamiliar or uncomfortable with. As yourself “why am I uncomfortable with this?” and move on from there. Rather than going with the gut feeling that first emerges, and the desire to project what you think is right upon a situation you may not fully understand, try to figure out what made that reaction occur inside you in the first place. Go from there. The point about ending racial identification is an interesting one, and one that has actual merit in a socio-philosophical context. Obviously in this case it was merely a knee-jerk response to a perceived attack, and an attempt to justify and rationalize the original emotional position (because let’s face it, this type of response has to be based in emotion, because applying logic to the problem would at the very least caution the speaker to do some goddamn research before mouthing off on Twitter). I do think it’s an interesting point, and in a different context there may be validity to aspects of it, if certainly not the whole argument as it stands. In this context I judge the response to be (while somewhat trite) meritoriously apt. (Frankly).
To say that “I am just a person, separate from any race”, within the context of this particular discussion, is simply not true - our various societies are dramatically biased based on ridiculous things like skin color and skeletal structure, let alone cultural norms that appear different outside their native contexts. To say otherwise is very probably an aspect of privilege, if not one of outright ignorant stupidity. “Privilege” in the sense that for whatever reason, this particular person has never needed to consider themselves as a ‘minority’, or by some other dualistic term that places them within the realm of ‘other’ apart from what is considered ‘normal’ within a society.
To suggest that adhering to separation above all else - so that your identity is solely wrapped up in your genetic or cultural history - is something we as a species should avoid is (alone) an admirable and interesting point to make. In this context, bringing it up just makes you look like a twat.