In general, it’s best not to argue, as entering into an engagement should be coming into to a discussion with a mind open to learning. Thus, point number two is what is interesting to me here. If one “side” is not reasonable and prone to violence, then really there is another “side” watching, a third party that needs persuading. It’s like I commented on in a case reflecting this tactic, Martin King was not trying to “convince” the Southern white side, which had been using brutal tactics of repression and laws that repressed black Americans for over 200 hundred years, but instead was showing the Northern whites and whites outside those dozen or 15 Jim Crow states the violence inherent in the system, even to peaceful demands. He showed the outside world the readiness by the white police to use violence on peaceful black Americans, which groups of whites had always done when poor black Americans did not “comply” with “direct orders” from other whites. This presentation of the core of the situation black Americans faced was presented to a third party, which is really the people who were convinced by being appalled by the actions of white Jim Crow states where white in the supermajority always rule with violence and an iron fist.
Thanks for your insights on this issue.