Of course, virtually everyone understands that blacks are killed disproportionately by police, but that doesn't imply a racial motive when we know for fact that there are disparities in the commission of violent crime, rates of police interaction, etc which could also explain the disparity in shootings.
And of course, the particular remedial policies depend significantly on the answers to these questions. In particular, people who identify strongly with BLM are much more likely to advocate defunding or abolishing the police (but are also the least happy that inadequate policing led citizens to defend themselves during various BLM riots in 2020, including the Rittenhouse case).
Further still, there's a lot of controversy over whether violence or non-violence are the appropriate way to seek the reforms one desires, with virtually the whole of the media downplaying or actively justifying political violence (even invoking MLK's "riots are the language of the oppressed" out of context[1]) right up until January 6th, 2021 when political violence abruptly and rightly regained its "reprehensible" designation.
Further still, contrary to the media portrait, a majority of black Americans don't support violent protest or the abolition or defunding of police--like most other Americans, they want sensible police reform[0].
So yes, BLM is quite controversial in American politics for reasons which have little to do with clear cut advocacy for human rights.
[0]: https://news.gallup.com/poll/315962/americans-say-policing-n... [1]: One of the more memorable examples was CNN adding the "fiery but mostly peaceful" caption as a journalist sporting a gas mask reported against a backdrop of a dozen burning vehicles.
The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s in the US also involved violent riots by some actors, and there was public debate between sides on whether segregation was intrinsically a cause of inequality, similar to how there is debate today between sides on whether our criminal justice system is intrinsically a cause of racial inequality. If one didn't view segregation as intrinsically unequal, they might claim that the Civil Rights Movement (though focused on many other issues as is BLM) had "little to do with human rights." Supporting the Civil Rights Movement, a movement that contained numerous groups, goals, and actors (both violent and non-violent), was still a position that doesn't seem to have harmed organizations of the day, and may have even benefitted them.
If we can agree that this slogan is controversial, then it seems like we should be able to agree that the Go project could make its points better by avoiding a controversial slogan and instead using an unambiguous statement. Certainly this should be open for discussion.
Moreover, I could make a similar statement about "All Lives Matter", which is necessarily focused on human rights, but most people steer clear of the slogan because the media has worked to associate it with right-wing groups and now it is only used by right-wing groups--good faith people strive to make their points in ways which are unambiguously good faith; bad faith people use motte and bailey rhetoric which is what the Go team appears to be doing (they are certainly aware of the controversial nature of the slogan and refuse to discuss it).
> The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s in the US also involved violent riots by some actors
Right, and we collectively rebuked those actors and raised up non-violent actors as exemplars for social change.
> there was public debate between sides on whether segregation was intrinsically a cause of inequality, similar to how there is debate today between sides on whether our criminal justice system is intrinsically a cause of racial inequality.
Public debate is fine. Burning and looting neighborhoods, attacking innocent people, etc is not.
> If one didn't view segregation as intrinsically unequal, they might claim that the Civil Rights Movement (though focused on many other issues as is BLM) had "little to do with human rights."
Right, but through public debate and other non-violent means, we made the case that segregation is intrinsically unequal. With respect to BLM, note that there was an enormous effort to punish people for criticizing BLM.
> Supporting the Civil Rights Movement, a movement that contained numerous groups, goals, and actors (both violent and non-violent), was still a position that doesn't seem to have harmed organizations of the day, and may have even benefitted them.
We supported the Civil Rights Movement because it largely emphasized non-violence. We supported the movement in spite of its violent elements, and the violent and nationalist figures remained controversial right up until BLM folks made them popular.