“We” is anyone who values fairness, dignity, and honesty.

Because it is unfair, demeaning, and dishonest to pick out just the worst aspect of an entire phenomenon and speak only of that, when addressing arguments and opinions that didn’t even involve that part.

You are utterly wrong that all movements for social progress are about self-interest: have you forgotten the Civil War? (You are correct that they sometimes are. It is important to distinguish them. And it is important to be vigilant against an initially compassionate change being hijacked by those who would twist it for their own self-serving ends.)

And you are utterly wrong that there’s anything wrong with a movement for social progress being about self-interest when those very same people are being treated unjustly! “Victims of police brutality want social change so that they won’t keep getting beaten up for being at the wrong place at the wrong time.” Oh, the horror! How ruthless of them to want progress for themselves — for instance, to have their basic human rights respected!

You seem compelled to overstate or misrepresent everything even when you could instead try to make a thoughtful point. For instance, there were a whole bunch of completely peaceful protests (the overwhelming majority). There were also some that were not completely peaceful. There were also riots that formed out of protests but were not the protests themselves. There were also riots that formed well after protests had finished, using the cover of protests as an excuse. There were also attempted acts of looting and destruction stopped by protestors. These distinctions are important to make: it’s not that there weren’t some violent protests (there were) but that there were a lot of absolutely completely peaceful ones. It matters because when you fail to make these distinctions, you try to tar everyone remotely close with the most unlawful actions even remotely associated.

The charge of “deaths” doesn’t belong anywhere near the word “vast”. The protests were vast: 20+ million people. The deaths were not: 20–40 people, depending on how you count. That’s still tragic, but not vastly tragic, given the scale of the protests. (Not all deaths were inflicted by rioters, though most deaths were riot-associated, not riot-free-protest associated; but the rioters weren’t always the killers: in many cases the rioters or protesters were the ones killed.)

However, the destruction was vast. Probably a couple of billion dollars in damages. You could have just gone with this angle, you know.

Also, you brought up the “defund the police” thing. But a bunch of things are going on, not just defunding of the police (which hasn’t happened in most jurisdictions, by the way), like everyone getting fed up with coronavirus mitigation efforts. If you had a solid argument to back up that crime is rising specifically in places where there is actual defunding, then this would be a powerful counterargument to the “white allies just don’t care” line — you could try to argue “no, allies realized that the most obvious call to action — defund the police — was counterproductive, and distanced themselves”. (Alternatively: “defund the police” was a botched slogan meaning “redirect some funding into more effective social services rather than asking police to perform social service work”, and when people took the slogan literally, allies moved away from the obvious own-goal.) There’s all sorts of stuff you could argue in this area, potentially. I’m not saying that the argument would be successful. But you haven’t even tried! Not yet, anyway.

So far it’s all demonization and oversimplification.