The important to thing to realize about cancel culture, CoC enforcement, and various efforts like this, is that it's very occasionally about making the world a better place, and very often about people who want power doing everything they can to seize power.

Even the "Black Lives Matter" movement is distracted from the goal of making black lives matter with a laundry list of progressive demands like dismantling the "Western-prescribed nuclear family structure" that are tangentially related at best. (Indeed, the entire premise of contemporary intersectionality demands one surrender the possibility of delivering meaningful reform on an incremental basis, in service of forming a bloc dedicated to seizing power wholesale.)

> that it's very occasionally about making the world a better place, and very often about people who want power doing everything they can to seize power.

More specifically, by exploiting and weaponizing the good nature of others. This is why they went after geek hobbies specifically: science fiction, open source, comics, cartoons, video games, and tabletop RPGs -- because geeks are sensitive and accommodating, and shouting at them how racist and sexist they are is bound to make them stop and reflect -- leaving them wide open to further attack. Had they chosen to attack pastimes rife with actual racists and sexists -- tailgate parties in rural Georgia, say -- they'd be routed, because racists and sexists don't have the fucks to give about their behavior.

As I've said elsewhere, "SJWs" aren't really geeks. They are more like mentally deranged normies who long to sit at the cool kids' table, but don't stand a chance of ever sitting there, so they take over the geeks' table, because better to rule in hell than serve in heaven.

The Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation doesn't speak for the Black Lives Matter movement.

You must admit this is very confusing. Which of those two groups are the good guys? Who does speak for them?

Back in the days when Occupy movement was starting, and 4chan people were trolling Scientologists, this was lauded as a new era of social movements - decentralized. No central organization to squash, anyone can pick up the label and carry the fight.

What we got was also predictable, though. If anyone can fight under any banner, if nobody owns the banner, there is no possibility to come to a compromise, to settle the differences. The proponents of a movement will pick the most benign shard as an example to defend and popularize their cause; the opponents of the movement will pick the most extremist shard as a justification to fight back. Everyone feels their survival is at stake.

That's like asking who speaks for feminism, Occupy, or the gilets jaunes. They're decentralized.

That's a fine point, but I was just told someone DIDN'T speak for them.

They don't. No single person or organization can speak for a decentralized movement.

Does this mean that the movement does not mean anything specific?

Supposing your thesis to be true, the fact that you have to make that distinction only supports the claim I made. The foundation’s efforts are one key thing that distracts the movement from what I would assume to be the foundational goal of preserving black lives (specifically by seeing that they are no longer exposed to the direct, acute threats that tend to occur when interacting with police.)

It seems then we are not in disagreement over substantive matters, but over minor questions such as phrasing.

We seem to disagree whether a significant number of people in the BLM movement pay any attention to the BLM Global Network Foundation.