That would be a more meaningful strip if BLM itself wasn't essentially ignoring the burning-out-of-control-house of black on black crime while obsessing over the relatively small brush fire that is police shootings of blacks.
You mean how conservatives want to ban Muslims...
Well, that's false.
...and claim "radical Muslim Terror!"...
That's not a claim, that's a label. It's the things said about it that are kinda important. You know, like "Radical Islamic Terrorists" are responsible for this attack, and that attack, and this other attack over there. On the conservative side of the fence we actually make a distinction between "all Muslims" and "terrorists who base their actions on a radical version of Islam". On the Left side? Not so much. Which speaks volumes about them, not us.
...because of the "small brush fire" of terrorist attacks while ignoring the "burning-out-of-control" America on America crime?
I wouldn't call the loss of 3000 civilian lives in a single day a "small brush fire" in this context, or in any other. I'll also point out that we don't label our efforts as "American Lives Matter". We label it properly based on what we are fighting for or against. In this case, we believe that we should be fighting against "Radical Islamic Terrorism".
BLM's label is "Black Lives Matter". Which is not an accurate label at all. Hence my point.
Why does any of this matter when heart disease kills everyone more than anything. Can't be concerned about killers until we stop heart disease!
It matters because they chose the label. And they did so quite obviously for the word association value of it. If someone disagrees with their action or their movement, they can be accused of not believing that "black lives matter". It's absurd, but there you have it. They chose an overly broad label intentionally. One need only witness their actions when faced with someone making the mistake of saying that "all lives matter" to see how this works and how it is used. That was not by accident.
And yes, if someone said that their primary objective was the "saving of human lives", I'd expect their actions to be in proportion to the things that take the most human lives (so fighting against disease, smoking, car crashes, fighting to promote greater safety habits in homes, especially regarding child proofing, etc). If they instead spent 99.9% of their effort opposing skydiving because of its risk to human lives, I'd be correct in saying that their movement is less about saving human lives and more about opposing skydiving. Get it?
Why does the black life taken by a cop matter more to them than the black life taken by a black gang member? Clearly, it's not just that "Black Lives Matter", but that too many black lives are lost to police actions. Which I totally agree with. I just don't like the kind of word association tricks they use to try to berate people into supporting them. And I don't like the angry rhetoric they use. I think it's counter productive. In the same way I think that self segregation is counter productive. You're only increasing alienation when you do that. You're creating conflict.
Which, I suspect, is the actual point here. It's about inflaming emotions and hoping for violent actions, expecting a counter reaction, and then condemning that reaction as proof of their position all along. Which may be a great way to gain some political influence, but it's a crappy approach if you actually care about black lives. Who do you think gets caught in the middle of all of this? The same poor blacks living in high crime neighborhoods who are already the victims of their own condition. They're the ones who's neighborhoods will be destroyed by rioting. They're the ones who will suffer from longer police response times because the cops are afraid to travel alone. They're the ones who will become even more victimized by emboldened gangs in their neighborhoods. And yes, they're the ones who will suffer the results of increasingly reactionary police that have to account for the possibility that every single encounter with a black person in a car on on the street might result in that black person shooting at them just to "kill a cop".
You think that cops are trigger happy now? You think they are too quick to assume someone has a weapon, or is reaching for a weapon? We keep seeing black people deliberately setting traps and shooting cops, and that number can only increase. And who do you think gets shot? Seriously. Think this through. This movement is not about reducing or ending the conditions that cause police shootings of black motorists and pedestrians. It's about increasing them so as to use their deaths for further political advantage. It's about making black people even more victimized than they already are. And it'll certainly benefit the members and leaders of BLM. But who is going to be paying that cost?