Yep, that's exactly what I said. Why is it that some people so enjoy arguing with caricatures of a point that makes them feel some kind of way? It's so childish. Or is it just a way to avoid thinking seriously about the issue?

I mean, God, why exactly do you think King was so devoted to no-violence in his activism? Do you think he was advocating for people to "just take it"? Activism and rioting are not synonyms. In fact, they’re practically antonyms.

And what, exactly, is "reclaiming a right to violence"? A right to violence?? Are you kidding me? We're not talking about a rebellion against the government, we're not talking about a righteous uprising against tyranny, we're talking about people who couldn't care less about Nahel or Floyd or Taylor shooting fireworks into buildings, stealing smartphones and destroying the property of civilians just like them who haven't done anything wrong.

Are the ordinary people who lose their homes or their property in that destruction also oppressed? If so, by whom?

Besides, at least in the case of Nahel and George Floyd how did the government not "give space or voice" to the oppressed? Both officers were arrested, Floyd's killer was convicted, what more would you like the government to do?

If the answer is police reform, that's great. I've written on that topic before. Maybe we agree there. But do you think causing days of destruction in the streets, justifying a more absolutist police response and greater overreach (again, this is what happened in France), is the way to achieve that? Did it work during the BLM riots? Nope. In fact, all that happened was that more innocent people, disproportionately black, died.

I'm not devoted to order or the status quo. I'm devoted to effective, productive change. I'm devoted to people using their brains instead of pretending their tantrums are activism. I'm devoted to avoiding actions, as King actually said about riots, that are "socially destructive and self-defeating."