Rule

The Other America appears to have been written by Michael Harrington, so why is this posted with a picture of Martin Luther King?

And it was published in 1962, not 1968.

you're referring to a book called The Other America. This post, and the quote in it, is from a speech by the same name, given by MLK in '68
- Lmao, the internet has gone to shit. My search results brought up no mention of that at all. Thanks!
  For any other dumbasses like me, here's the full thing: http://www.gphistorical.org/mlk/mlkspeech/

Holy shit, and he was assassinated less than a month later. I'm starting to believe in the conspiracy theory that the CIA killed King now.

Okay but maybe this violent thug should take a back seat to reasonable peaceful protestors who actually got things done, like dr. King, and let these rioters be judged by their actions rather than their identities?

Edit: the violent thug being quoted i mean.

If we are to learn from the successful movements of the past, we can see that all successful pressure has been the collusion of the peaceful and non-peaceful aspects of the movement, such that the peaceful party can lobby the state to concede, saying to them “now see? Wouldn’t you rather deal with me than them? Sit down and make some concessions to those suffering people.” Meanwhile, the non-peaceful protesters escalate the aggression of their actions such as to put a clock on the state. Direct action should therefore not be seen as a chaotic by-product to be avoided. It should instead be seen as a necessity to extract outcomes for the movement. Ultimately, if the demands of the protests are not met, revolution should be the threat. In this way, we are to transform the state to our whims, not vice versa. And if it does not concede, we will have built the bodies of prefiguration that will be prepared to replace it.
— Black Flag Catalyst Revolt Guide (Partial video reading by Anark here).
We need both peaceful and non-peaceful actors. Obviously for individual actions (non-peaceful and peaceful) you gotta use your own judgement as to whether or not they're helpful, but we absolutely need some non-peaceful actors to get shit done.
Would you talk about the reasonable peaceful protestors if it wasn't for the violent thugs?
- No because they wouldn't have gotten anything done.
Are you missing a /s on this, because some people unironically believe what you said so you're gonna get showered in those down votes.
I want this to have a /s, I wish it wasn't necessary but in today's world it seems to be. I read your post as satire fwiw
- showered in
  So that's what's causing my skin issues!
  downvotes
  They give it a wonderful crispy texture and make it extra toxic to shitlibs who might engage even as readers.
  Even if i based my entire ego on how many popular internet points i get at the debate dojo² it still wouldn't do to just take at face value the shallow analysis of people whose entire morality is a mass of group signifiers.
  The downvotes here are a kind of agreement that 1. Signifies im smarter than everyone else and 2. Makes it completely poisonous to liberalism, because libs who want to munch some onion would need to engage with the disapproval of the crowd, but a purely hypothetical erudite lib would still need to cut through the irony with nuance, and i feel like i could use that to squeeze a lot more out of the bit. Either way, their position is shown as so vile even satire of it is in bad taste. Even if im totally misread by someone radically stupid, they will feel the vibes of rejection that i want therm to.
  The crowd, in on it or not, is part of the bit. I far prefer it when they are not.
  ²and i don't; i also play video games online, post heavily photoshopped nudes, and a variety of other healthy well adjusted hobbies