I see. I guess I parse his argument a little differently. I see the SSC argument as "I would like to spend 100 units of resource (time, money, etc) improving b

I see. I guess I parse his argument a little differently. I see the SSC argument as "I would like to spend 100 units of resource (time, money, etc) improving black lives. The line between (donating money to malaria prevention) and (black lives improved in Africa) is much clearer to me than the line between (donating money to/attending events organized by BLM) and (black lives improved in the USA). Therefore, I should spend my 100 units on malaria prevention." Maybe this is what you mean by "arguing against BLM's right for self-preservation": taken to its extreme, this argument says that all of the effort behind BLM should just pivot to malaria prevention. In that case, the argument does look racist, because it's taken all of the resources devoted to agitating for societal change and re-allocated them to narrower medical assistance that's unlikely to produce the same kind of societal change. I don't think SSC is arguing for a complete pivot in resource allocation. I think he's arguing that more, but not all, attention should be spent on malaria prevention, and he sees malaria prevention as ultimately contributing to more improvement of black lives. But now I think I understand your response better, because it is in the above sense possible to interpret his argument as saying BLM is not itself a worthy cause. But I don't read it that way.