I can't believe you didn't mention "Defund the Police"! It's like advertising your food with, "Higher Prices, Smaller Portions" and forgetting to mention that you intend to include more different portions so that it's both a better deal and more interesting overall.

But I think you're being too generous to cast this as a failure of marketing. I think all these slogans have been wildly successful with their target audience.

One of the great insights from Scott Atran is the power of affirmation of something non-obvious or genuinely wrong (and slogans are a form of belief) to signify commitment to a tribe:

"Roughly, religion is a community’s costly and hard-to-fake commitment to a counterfactual and counterintuitive world of supernatural agents who master people’s existential anxieties, such as death and deception. […] The more one accepts what is materially false to be really true, and the more one spends material resources in displays of such acceptance, the more others consider one’s faith deep and one’s commitment sincere."

It is precisely because the beliefs are weird and wrong (but not so wrong that you immediately end up dead)--or because the slogans are so misleading, awkward, or counterintuitive!--that professing a shared belief in them is a very good signal of where your allegiances lie.

That this is the explanation seems especially bolstered by the fact that one of the most egregious offenders of apparent "bad marketing" (yet with great commercial success?!), Robin DiAngelo, is a professor in Critical Discourse Analysis whose job it is to explore how language impacts perception and reality! Either she is the most unbelievably inept practitioner of the field who just accidentally has an amazing knack for coining deniably divisive terms that mark one's tribal affiliation clearly, or--subconsciously or otherwise--it's no accident at all.

To me, this is the clearest indication that, whatever they say they believe, a critical mass of people on the social-justice-advocating left don't actually care very much about social justice. They care about having a movement. They care about unity. They care about having a good feeling about themselves and each other. But they don't actually care about their supposed core values, just professing them.

We've seen this before with the "Moral Majority" in the United States. Despite claiming that they care about morality (because of their faith in God) and that they were the majority, under that label they gathered a set of cruel special-interest positions and voted for faithless liars to enact them using legislative trickery when support wasn't there. Compared to the slogans, it is hard to imagine a more abject failure. But they did build a very strong movement. The right still loves its counterfactual proclamations to build its side's unity--"the election was stolen" being one of the most strikingly obvious ones lately.

So I am not prepared to grant that these things are the way that they are because of a marketing failure. I think the real product isn't what it might seem. The product is political and ideological unity, and the marketing is great. You want the others to fight you as hard as possible but for bad reasons (so nobody defects): that's how you stay cohesive, that's why membership in your tribe is necessary for survival. And most of it seems to be running at the instinctual level, which makes it especially resistant to improvement.

It's terribly sad. Better marketing won't help. The product is wrong.