I have encountered your feedback in other spaces. As I do here, I find you a serious and empathetic thinker, with fleshed out opinions that I have yet to disagree with. I simply LOVE the way you think - rings all my bells: organized, passionate, informed.

That is me saying I hope I deliver this in a way you understand that you have done zero wrong here - this is all me. I do not do well engaging around Dr. King (or any in the "collective" - Rosa and X and the Panthers and Douglass and Baldwin and Booker T). I am fluent in their work, yes. And the questions almost always come from a good place - yours certainly does. Still, the associations bother me. Thus, I never give a substantive response.

You're on fire - all of this is top shelf. If I read you correctly, you are asking about: thoughts on the engagement range, up to and including violence; and, defective sub messaging (self-advocate nicely).

The violence in my work is a metaphor. Beyond that, a few thoughts:

It is the height of arrogance for anyone not writing/enforcing law and not the subject of abuse to raise, let alone limit, the acceptable boundaries of a response. Or, as I am inclined to say, who TF asked you?

That hubris is the most amazing elixir - stick with silence unless we're changing the abuse model for everyone. Racism is the ONLY abuse type in the abuse model where people seem to think folks other than the abused have a seat at the consequences table. So, tell you what: when elder abusers or child abusers or thieves or pedophiles or rapists or workplace abusers or ANYONE on the wrong side of #MeToo can legit slide up to the table, Team Abuse Source can. Until then, miss me.

And, anyone concerned about a violent response could avoid said response by, you know, not being racist. Simple rule: the white pawn starts the game; if you're worried about losing, don't play. Or, like that old Negro spiritual says, don't start none, won't be none.

Keep it real, Merk. Take care.