I think it's less about importing side perception of him and more about viewing this in the wider context of just how upsetting and dehumanizing all of this is and being angry with someone who seems to have zero appreciation or sympathy for that - an upset which I would extend to anyone I perceived to be doing that.
But, only about 2% of thought is conscious and the rest is coming from the subconscious so I concede that there may be factors in play of which I am not wholly aware. Edit: The fact that you feel very strongly that angry or extreme rhetoric damages or impedes social justice causes despite no real evidence of that (and lots of evidence to the contrary) may mean that you are also at the mercy of subconscious elements and your emotions as well. Just something to consider.
One last note of substance, which I have actually already spoken to, is his assertion that the primary reason that Democrats are not winning races is because of angry or extreme rhetoric, when there is zero evidence that this is the case. First off, Clinton won the popular vote by over 3 million, and although she did experience backlash for that particular comment, without the Electoral College, she would have been the one going to the White House.
“Additionally, modern-day Democrats are disadvantaged because they “have tended to win large states by large margins and lose them by small margins.” In 2016, for example, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton won California by nearly 3.5 million votes. Meanwhile, she lost the crucial swing states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin by fewer than 80,000 votes combined.”
Things like voter suppression, gerrymandering, the EC, and a failure to address the needs and concerns of blue-collar voters is why Democrats don't win more of the time. There is zero evidence that it has anything whatsoever to do with extreme or angry rhetoric.
As you may recall, Trump said a lot more things that were angry, inflammatory, and extreme during his campaign, and lots of people loved him for it — because in a patriarchal dominance hierarchy that reads as power and leadership — when it’s coming from a man. When a woman does it, it reads like being a bitch and a problem.
D’s issue was less about "angry rhetoric" and more about "angry white women" and being "tired of" hearing their anguished utterances- and I've already explained to you why that is callus, inflammatory, sexist and just plain mean.
Show me some actual evidence of how people expressing their anger has turned the tide against them and their cause - rather than been the deciding factor that led to positive social change - and I'll be happy to re-evaluate my position but I don't think you have history on your side.
Edit: Another MLK quote that illustrates my point:
“I contend that the cry of “Black Power” is, at bottom, a reaction to the reluctance of white power to make the kind of changes necessary to make justice a reality for the Negro. I think that we’ve got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard. And, what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the economic plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years.”
All social justice initiatives probably begin with asking nicely, but what they soon discover is that it is only with concerted, loud, indignant advocacy that any change begins to take place. We see this with abolitionism, women’s suffrage, the Civil Rights movement, the Women’s Movement of the 1970s and beyond, the Gay Rights Movement, #MeToo, BLM, etc., etc., ad infinitum.
