I believe they were engaging in irony, accusing Dr. King of having been a violent thug when he should have protested peacefully like Dr. King, to highlight the necessity of directed violence and the flawed thinking of complete pacifism. I believe they simply worded themselves in a way that was lost on many readers.
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.
I don’t understand the edit in your first comment
I believe they were engaging in irony, accusing Dr. King of having been a violent thug when he should have protested peacefully like Dr. King, to highlight the necessity of directed violence and the flawed thinking of complete pacifism. I believe they simply worded themselves in a way that was lost on many readers.
Also the appropriation of his legacy by fucks who never read a thing he said.
Now please delete that. You’re making me sound like not-a-piece-of-shit