We are on the mountaintop. Black people are judged by the content of our character,we can be satisfied because black FOLK are not the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. Justice is rolling down like waters and righteousness.


>>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"
>
>


So when the author says this

" I’m a black woman though. The hopeless fear Warmbier is now experiencing is my daily reality living in a country where white men like him are willfully oblivious to my suffering even as they are complicit in maintaining the power structures which ensure their supremacy at my expense. He is now an outsider at the mercy of a government unfazed by his cries for help. I get it."

she is gloating and cheering the way Black women are treated in the U.S. ? Nothing in the paragraph I quoted is a pivot from the position of gloating and cheering ?



>
>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?
>
>

I didn't say King failed. I am saying if non-violence didn't change people who are indifferent and apathetic, then a persuasive argument is not going to get the job done.

This other strategy has was not used in the past.

Now explain how people who are indifferent to the murder of Tamir Rice will change if the hear us attack the author of a piece about white privilege in NK ?