I wonder who decided to use slogans that go to the far other end and can be attacked when you could have said black lives matter too and reform the police. Am I really suppose to believe a slogans that couldn't be twisted just couldn't be thought up? It makes me think that someone is working together.
I'm torn by these terms. I will explain in a brief a manner as possible. It might have been well thought out terms by people who are radical, or maybe it was intentional by those who WANT to create havok.
Black Lives Matter in particular, is a divisive term. It creates resentment with many people, especially those who have been the victim of police abuses but are NOT black. Or, parents of such victims who believe their son or daughter was the victim of police brutality, but, no one hears their story because it doesn't fit the BLM narrative.
If some police agency or foreign government had an insider in the BLM organization, before it was named this, it would be the type of name they would suggest to ensure it would be divisive.
Ditto for Defund the Police. Instead of something such as "Police Accountability", or "Accountable Police Budgets" (a play on the term APB), they provided an out for people to say, "oh look, they want to
eliminate the police!".
England was kneeling during their Euro Cup matches. China is using the BLM term (I'm sure they are being some of the funding) to attack the U.S. Some who might be less extreme are now suggesting "it's time to replace police" since it's the only term they can associate with. So, both terms are creating problems for the West, instead of meaningful reform and accountable budgets.