Actually I can only speak to what I was intending which was not what you are saying I was intending, which, of course, is the whole point of this discussion. Right? What BLM intends is exactly what it intends and to speak about it as if it is up for debate or opinion is a big FAT category error. I do agree with your resistance to redefinition as well as your characterization of subsuming association. What is needed is fundamental understanding, which is painfully absent in the agenda-based media, hence the big FAT period. By leaving a statement right where it is uttered one is forced to deal with the context in which it was uttered without over or undertones. Clarity is only possible when you consider the source within its original context. There is much to be learned if we can come to this point as a society.
Finally, just this morning, I was thinking about how there is an automatic reaction in today's society to cast everything in terms of bleak opposition (you will never be like me) or subsumed co-opting (you have always been exactly like me). There is almost never a conversation about how much all humans have in common and whether that can be a basis for normalization. It's deeply disturbing to me and always has been. This mindless disparate point is what I have dedicated my life to eradicating. I am not advocating the eradication of dissonance or even the right to defer or disagree. What I am saying is that concentration upon the automatic assumption that there is a friend and an enemy is only going to blow this planet to shreds. Humanity has to begin to find common ground as a basis for addressing what marginalization even means. This would be the deep understanding I am referring to. I hope that helps to clarify what I was trying to say.