> Black Lives Matter is a slogan used by disparate groups for a variety of causes. The slogan "Black Lives Matter" is necessarily one focused on the human rights of black people.
If we can agree that this slogan is controversial, then it seems like we should be able to agree that the Go project could make its points better by avoiding a controversial slogan and instead using an unambiguous statement. Certainly this should be open for discussion.
Moreover, I could make a similar statement about "All Lives Matter", which is necessarily focused on human rights, but most people steer clear of the slogan because the media has worked to associate it with right-wing groups and now it is only used by right-wing groups--good faith people strive to make their points in ways which are unambiguously good faith; bad faith people use motte and bailey rhetoric which is what the Go team appears to be doing (they are certainly aware of the controversial nature of the slogan and refuse to discuss it).
> The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s in the US also involved violent riots by some actors
Right, and we collectively rebuked those actors and raised up non-violent actors as exemplars for social change.
> there was public debate between sides on whether segregation was intrinsically a cause of inequality, similar to how there is debate today between sides on whether our criminal justice system is intrinsically a cause of racial inequality.
Public debate is fine. Burning and looting neighborhoods, attacking innocent people, etc is not.
> If one didn't view segregation as intrinsically unequal, they might claim that the Civil Rights Movement (though focused on many other issues as is BLM) had "little to do with human rights."
Right, but through public debate and other non-violent means, we made the case that segregation is intrinsically unequal. With respect to BLM, note that there was an enormous effort to punish people for criticizing BLM.
> Supporting the Civil Rights Movement, a movement that contained numerous groups, goals, and actors (both violent and non-violent), was still a position that doesn't seem to have harmed organizations of the day, and may have even benefitted them.
We supported the Civil Rights Movement because it largely emphasized non-violence. We supported the movement in spite of its violent elements, and the violent and nationalist figures remained controversial right up until BLM folks made them popular.