This article is unfair and wrong in my opinion. Of course, my opinion is completely objective, but this argument really doesn't make sense to me. This article was borderline offensive. You don't have to be a white supremacist or misogynist to have this type of POV. Now, this isn't to say I don't like you or something, but this argument is wrong. Not only is the juxtaposition of Marxism in the article irrelevant, but your people cases draw constraits based off of person-to-person evidence. I think that the main problem here is that this argument wasn't properl thought through. The section of harming people they're supposed to help and the overarching theme of this article really does not make sense to me. The reason for this is that there are bad and good seedlings in everything. The BLM Organization doesn't support looting and other violent acts, those are just some substituents acting in violence. Domestic Terrorism isn't a word to throw around. BLM has done wonders for you and me and everyone. Just think about it - BLM's protest for George Floyd literally marked a stance at which protestors are committed to nonviolence. Martin Luther King promoted nonvolience and civil disobidience, but he was still percieved as a violent threat, to the point where he was killed/murdered.
Why do you think this is?
Then you'll see why I completely disagree with this article.
However, I would still love to talk with you (more about optogenetics and neuromedicine, and neurotech) and have a full conversaion.