Typical uses of “Black lives matter” don’t conversationally implicate that non-Black lives don’t matter, or that whether non-Black lives are treated as mattering doesn’t warrant discussion by the speaker. But typical uses of “White Americans are anxious” do conversationally implicate that non-white Americans are not notably anxious, or not anxious enough to warrant discussion by the speaker, because a speaker who genuinely thought non-white Americans’ anxiety was noteworthy would have no reason not to note it. What accounts for the differences between these uses, given their obvious similarities? My explanation is simple and intuitive, but drops the traditional assumption that, when we explain what is and isn’t conversationally implicated by an utterance, we cannot legitimately appeal to pragmatic phenomena. I explain conversational implicatures in part by way of the (would-be) implicatures and pragmatic presuppositions of other utterances.