I've said most of the stuff in reply to that elsewhere on AB, v-e. It's an interesting definition of divisive and hateful discourse that manages to exclude everything Trump, or his supporters, said during the campaign. Particularly as even his campaign team have acknowledged that a lot of what was said was divisive and even hateful, and tried to get Trump to calm down (and failed). In the event, it didn't seem to matter, because America is already divided -- Trump exploited this, rather than created it, but his campaign was still divisive and hateful.
As to BLM -- well, it's a movement that, like all others stoked by righteous anger, sometimes lashes out at the wrong targets in the wrong way. There are real problems between (some) police and (some) black people, and it's crazy to pretend otherwise. Perhaps the real problem is that it seems never to matter what the circumstances are; police simply don't get prosecuted, or properly investigated. There is no formal equivalent of the IPCC in the US. Instead, investigations such as there are tend to be conducted internally, and -- well, come on, do you really think that's going to be impartial if it's your friends and colleagues doing the investigating? No doubt the religious adherence to the 2nd Amendment plays its part too. Whatever the causes, though, portraying BLM as somehow the "real" hate, and minimising the hate in the other direction, is a gross distortion of the reality.