Well how many actions are being performed in the image?

1

Anonymous bongo_fury 14w

They are throwing fireworks, rocks, and Molotovs at police officers. That doesn’t seem like he’s fighting for freedom.

1

Anonymous OP 14w

That’s frequently what people who are fighting for freedom have got to do

3

Anonymous bongo_fury 14w

MLK didn’t have to destroy cars and throw rocks at police officers

1

Anonymous OP 14w

And look what non-violence has accomplished up to this point - has non-violence led to an ideal future, or to the present which we see? In reality, people make tactical decisions based on their circumstances and the larger environment should always be identified as the root of the extremism of the people. violence lends legitimacy to non-violence.

0

Anonymous bongo_fury 14w

Non violence led to MLK getting rid of blacks only schools and bathrooms and made it to where everyone can go to the same place. He accomplished a lot without using violence.

1

Anonymous OP 14w

And he coexisted with rioters and with advocates for violence. He was not a one-man movement, he is the best-remembered leader of a movement which contained a violent and a non-violent wing. And this is what I advocate; first, for tactic to be responsive to the environment, and therefore for the violence of an action to be proportional to the reaction; second, that violence and non-violence be analyzed as symbiotic rather than opposing strategies.

1

Anonymous OP 14w

Violence grows out of the initial non-violence, and non-violence takes legitimacy from its rejection of violence. The existence of violent protest gives leverage to existing non-violent protest, which can point to the possibility of a turn to violence and to its own role in regulating the level of violence displayed by other segments of the movement.

1