Wait, what? I didn't call it a comparison. I called it an analogy. I know what an analogy is.

And your analogy fails, in part, because white supremacy is not in any sense the same as black defence. The parts of an analogy still have to hold some logical consistency. Otherwise it's meaningless.

I didn't argue that black "bodies" befuddle the notion of white supremacy. Black people's actions befuddle the notion of white supremacy. Because otherwise you're arguing that black people are working directly against their own interests.

Again, this is possible. But in this case, especially given the surrounding context, it's not even remotely likely.

But in the case of white people at a BLM rally, those white people aren't acting against their interests. In fact, as my article points out, they're acting in favour of their own interests. Because police brutality affects everybody. So framing it as a "black issue" makes non-black people less likely to engage with it. It increases the likelihood that we'll end up arguing about whether white or blue or all lives matter. Which is exactly the mess we're in.

I mean, the fact that "all lives matter" was labelled a hate slogan is all you need to know about how derailed that conversation got. Ahmaud Arbery's dad pointed out that all lives matter at the trial of his son's murderers for God's sake.