Overwhelmingly, most of the people who are protesting these laws are women. Men may be against them, but much to the dismay of a lot of women, they are not the ones out there on the front lines, writing, speaking out, or actively protesting these laws. He doesn't need to say it every single time for it to be understood that the time he does complain about "angry white women" applies more broadly than just that one instance.
There may have been people in the center who moved away from the BLM movement but it also achieved a stunning amount of positive change nonetheless. Here's a story on that which list some of the major shifts - in thinking, in business, in laws about policing. The Washington Redskins finally changed their name after decades of refusing to, Nascar took down the Confederate flag. All of those things were a direct result of the BLM protests.
What you seem to be refusing to accept is that I'm not saying that it's either/or - that everyone is happy and thinks it's fine when more strident rhetoric is used. That certainly wasn't the case for MLK, who was widely hated and vilified (and murdered) in his own day. But it was effective nonetheless. You want to bring him up as a paragon of civil discourse and yet he was considered very extreme, and very out of line during his life - which was cut short to shut him up.
And now you are back to conflating public opinion with political coalition building which are two very different things - so I'm not getting into that again. All of these social issues were and are multifaceted and affected by all sorts of things, so trying to parse it down to "angry" or "not angry" is a bit reductive but every social movement that has been effective has had huge elements of "angry" and often that has played a major part in driving the movement forward. And, as King pointed out and others have as well, sometime the downtrodden are so distraught at being unheard and uncared about, that their anguish erupts. Which is what I wrote a huge long note to you about already - explaining in detail the ins and outs of how women are feeling right now. I'm not advocating for anger or anything remotely like that, but I do understand how and why it takes place and I am not going to sit by and let someone judge and sneer at the pain that is driving those behaviors.
You keep saying that extremism doesn't sell widely and yet, we've got nothing but far right extremism right now in many state legislatures. Extremism is what put Donald Fucking Trump in office, and prompted a bunch of his followers to storm the Capitol - something that nearly half of Republicans said was warranted. Extremism sells really, really well a good bit of the time. It's one of the central problems with American politics that those who get elected are often the most extreme. You may not like that, and it certainly doesn't apply every single time, but as a trend, that is where we are.
You have to deal with reality here, not just the theory that feels good to you. It would be nice if we lived in a culture where what you say is true, that the advantage goes to the most reasonable but the fact of the matter is, that isn't always the case. The facts simply don't bear that out. Suffragists had to fight hard for over 70 years to get the vote for women. FFS, Black men got the vote 50 years before that, in a deeply racist society - and that is just one example.
I've never once said that marches and walk-outs are the only thing that create change. I've simply said that they are a vital part because overwhelmingly, those who have power or advantage do not want to give it up willingly (we live in a dominance based hierarchy social system after all).
Edit: I’d love to live in a world where people take each other’s perspectives and feelings into account and try to work it through to find a win/win. I even wrote a story a while back on Tactical Empathy.
Dancova could have written a story that said a lot of the same things that he said, but with a tone that expressed understanding for the reasons that many people/women were feeling so stirred up — and offering his perspective on other ways to deal with those emotions. But he didn’t — he chose to mock and vilify them, to label them as the problem and to discount things out of hand as absurd that actually are of real concern, e.g., that contraception is next, that patriarchy is in play. A huge part of being “moderate” is understanding where the other person is coming from and why, but he doesn’t do that — he just complains about it. That’s why his story is so offensive — because it’s so tone-deaf. And a huge number of the comments he got on it agreed about that.
