BLM's approach has been awful, but it isn't hamfisted or racist. It only seems that way because you guys put every person that protests or riots or loots all into the BLM or ANTIFA bucket. How do you criticize a group that you don't know anything about? How are you determining who is and isn't a BLM member? You're still hanging on to Lebron tweets.
Going to a BLM protest in your city does not make you a BLM member. The organization has an express anti-violence policy. It has publicly and directly distanced itself from people/groups that have tried to start violence and anarchy.
What is awful about BLM's approach is that it isn't centralized, and it isn't organized. There aren't clear leaders delivering a clear message--someone that can go on the news and give straight answers to straight questions. It's just a bunch of different groups without clear leadership--which makes it easy for people to malign them as some sort of racist terrorist group.
But BLM isn't just some little group, the sentiment of what their aims are, fight for civil rights/equality/racism/etc--these things are things that a lot of people are with--and because of that, that will attract a lot of people from varying backgrounds.
That you're more concerned with Kap's pig socks than why he is wearing them is the dumb merrygoround that we can never seem to get off of. Conservatives find it more offputting that a guy would kneel during the anthem, than the idea that 'Hey, America is kind of fucked up when it comes to _____, and it's causing people to die. We should probably take notice and do something about that".
Focusing on shit that don't matter to own the libs.