>If that's all the piece said that would be gloating but you
>can't cherry pick that and ignore the rest of the article to
>make a point.
>
>Is it fair to do that to the author ?


Not cherrying picking. That's the theme of the piece. Nowhere did she pivot from that position.

You reaching trying to read into this somehow that she wasn't trying to convey "good for him"



>
>>
>>>
>>>>If you can't grasp how that is shortsighted and undermines
>>>the
>>>>greater cause, then I don't know what else to tell yall.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>The greater cause is what ? Making a convincing argument to
>>>the person or group who is not supporting the crazy idea
>>that
>>>the police should not murder blacks.
>>
>>
>>2. Yes dude that's the cause. Let me ask another way, how
>do
>>you think change will come with regards to police stop
>killing
>>black people IF it does not involve changing peoples mind
>who
>>are currently indifferent about it? Do you think the cause
>>does NOT involve persuading people that the cause is moral
>and
>>just?
>>
>>
>
>King was non violent and they still attacked him. The only way
>to change these indifferent people is if they have something
>to lose. Money, peace, whatever it takes once they have skin
>in the game they will change.


So King failed and this other strategy you speak is the way to do it? Help me out, explained to me how that worked in that past?




**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"