"They asked if our own nation wasn’t using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government."
For example:
"X is a bad person, therefore their argument is invalid" is an ad-hominem. Bad people can still make valid arguments.
"X's argument is both invalid and in bad faith, therefore they are a bad person" is a logical inference.
It's not, but it also has no place on HN.
It is the difference between "If you believe X then your school must have had brain-dead teachers" and "If you believe X you are brain-dead"
Trotted out by ignorant woke dummies. In his 1967 Stanford speech MLK also says: "Let me say as I've always said and I will always continue to say, that riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. I'm still convinced that nonviolence is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and justice."
Using MLK to defend or advocate violence is astonishingly ahistoric.