You will get a lot farther if you actually employ logic in your position rather than false equivocations and non-sequiturs. I really WANT to side with you, but if all your arguments are intellectually void and reasonable argument is replaced with a mish-mash of pseudo-intellectual claptrap, you actually do more harm than good, both for progress against racism, and for the legitimacy of BLM (assuming you claim to speak for them).
If you deliberately compared something you know shouldn’t get taken down with something that should, then what exactly are you comparing? Your rationalization about your problem with “Police Lives Matter” as some sort of co-opting of BLM is ridiculous. It’s a (reasonable) response to, not a co-opt of their BLM counterpoints. You can have a disagreement with it, but it’s not at all what you‘re framing it as.
I don’t know if you really need to work twice as hard, but half as hard definitely isn’t going to cut it. In fact, it hurts your cause to make such weak arguments, especially when BLM leaders are sticking their feet in their mouth with tweets like this:
There are MANY reasons to oppose racism and to get behind BLM, and I could argue many of them for you far better than your divisive article manages to, but that’s not my job, it’s yours.
Take some good advice and learn a thing or two about logic and dialectics (how about having a cheat sheet on logical fallacies handy?) before writing another article. The number of fallacies you’ve employed in this one is embarrassing.