Great, now do skin cancer. Or, as it turns out, pretty much any cancer except prostate and certain types of blood cancer. Not sure where you're getting the 20% higher overall cancer death rate data, but if true, you'd still need to provide the "ample evidence" that this was a result of cancer research into prostate and blood cancers being "underfunded for racist reasons."

You said yourself that you've never seen this evidence.

Also, note how your comparison shifts the goalposts from police brutality to mass incarceration? And how you're ignoring the higher incidence of crimes committed by black people, which will obviously lead to more police encounters and higher incarceration rates? It’s an incredibly shallow analysis that claims the only reason for disparities in incarceration and police encounters is racism.

And the key point here, which your last reply didn’t address, is that police brutality in general, including against black people, is up. Black deaths from other homicides are up. The leaders of BLM have been caught embezzzling millions of dollars with hardly any donations making it into communities where they might actually help black people. If your hypothetical cancer campaign produced results this catastrophic, whatever catchy name you decided to give it, I’d call it a disaster.

So yes, as I said in the article, eradicating police brutality benefits everybody. And black people most of all. So if your concern is helping black people, why not get as many people on board with fixing it as possible? Why frame it in a way that makes it seem like it's only black people's problem?