"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
Then what are you saying? I posted a screenshot of this conversation below.
1. Poster asks about other poster's position on the groups in question.
2. Other poster says, 'Pure cancer. All of them.'
3. I ask if poster is really equating groups like BLM to white supremacists.
4. You ask which part of the group.
5. I ask you what positive aspects can we attribute to white supremacists - since you seemed to be backing the guy grouping them together.
6. You say you don't compare opposing groups.
So, why did you respond to the 3rd reply listed above with the 4th reply? If you don't want to compare groups, why are you injecting yourself into a conversation comparing groups?
