Most of my life I've subscribed to the rule of never ascribing evil intent to something that can be attributed to stupidity, but at some point "they're just stupid" begins to wear thin as an explanation. The BLM movement has typically chosen icons that were unsympathetic to the population at large. The more law-abiding the victim of police brutality or whatnot, the less outrage. They only went through the motions with Philando Castille, as I recall. If racism is a big problem, then it must be easy to produce sympathetic and unambiguous cases of law-abiding people getting abused, and I think most conservatives would be on board with some kind of reform to stop and prevent it if the outrage were over such cases. Might take some work to get everybody agreeing on the response, but it's hard to know because they only get upset when it's some cretin doing the PSGWSP thing. Either it's not that easy to produce sympathetic cases because racism isn't as big and widespread a problem as they claim it is, or perhaps their actual intent is to divide and incite. Take the kneeling business in the NFL. They say the motive is one thing, but they also knew and understood, I believe, that the reaction of conservatives would be visceral and negative. Is this the the dumbest attempt to effect positive social change? Or was their intention to divide and incite from the outset? Not so dumb in that case.