This is precisely why social justice warriors are so dangerously untrustworthy and completely misleading.  Here is the quote this little nitwit cherry-picked from Martin Luther King: “Riots grow of intolerable conditions.  Violent revolts are generated by revolting conditions…”  Then she goes on to say in the video, “Basically, the king of peaceful protests understood why riots happen.  It’s a way powerless people attempt to be heard and to hold authorities accountable.”  And then she actually says:

What a very stupid thing to say.

The reason I even noticed this gifset was because I’ve actually read Martin Luther King’s autobiography, which she clearly has not.  I know the quote because I’ve actually used it myself.  However, here is the entire passage from which it was pulled:

“Riots grow of intolerable conditions.  Violent revolts are generated by revolting conditions and there is nothing more dangerous than to build a society with a large segment of people who feel they have no stake in it, who feel they have nothing to lose.  To the young victims of the slums, this society has so limited the alternatives of his life that the expression of his manhood is reduced to the ability to defend himself physically.  No wonder it appears logical to him to strike out, resorting to violence against oppression.  That is the only way he thinks he gets recognition.”

I bolded some points for emphasis.  You see Martin Luther King Jr. wasn’t condoning violent riots, he was explaining the ignorant rationale behind them and condemning them.  He continues:

“After the riot in Chicago that summer, I was greatly discouraged.  But we had trained a group of about two thousand disciplined devotees of nonviolence who were willing to take blows without retaliating.  We started out engaging in constitutional privileges, marching before real estate offices in all-white communities.  And that nonviolent, disciplined, determined force created such a crisis in the city of Chicago that the city had to do something to change conditions.  We didn’t have any Molotov cocktails, we didn’t have any bricks, we didn’t have any guns, we just had the power of our bodies and our souls.  There was power there, and it was demonstrated once more.”

Although, the little girl above goes on to explain that MLK did promote non-violent methods to protest, she alludes that rioting is an okay method for people to be heard.  The whole premise of her video was to try to compare the events in Ferguson to the totalitarian, oppressive police state of a dystopian future in The Hunger Games, which is absurd.  The Ferguson police aren’t killing the people in mass genocide to oppress and control them as much as they’d love to believe so (this is coming from a guy who hates big government btw.)  The police in Ferguson are only trying to control these sometimes out-of-control mobs of people and protect people and property.  There is no need to riot in Ferguson, but the criminals and rabble-rousers do it for their own self-interests; not to make a statement or “to be heard.”  The police wouldn’t need to be there if the protesters were all peaceful.

MLK would chastise her for spreading such a utterly false premise.  A quick Google search also brought up a similar time King used a form of this same phrase to criticize the Detroit riots:

“We have to see that riots grow out of intolerable conditions existing in all our cities, and also out of centuries of neglect. The tragedy is that the riots aren’t going to solve the problems. … They only intensify the fears of the white community while, in many cases, relieving its guilt.”

Despite what she is attempting to confer, riots solve nothing.  There is no social change coming from the actions in Ferguson.  It is a huge waste of time.  ”Hands up, don’t shoot” is based on an outright lie.  And the only thing that will be ingrained in our memories in a few years are people like Michael Brown’s stepfather who did this:

riots are the reason anyone’s ever heard of oscar grant

riots are the reason anyone’s ever heard of rodney king

riots are the reason gays can have bars

riots are the reason there’s no king of france

riots are the reason the united states that you pretend to know fuck all about even exists

True…but why do we even want to know Michael Brown’s name?  He was a criminal who got killed for attacking a police officer.  The story should have been closed after the grand jury investigation concluded.  I still don’t understand what was so unique about his death.

riots are the reason anyone’s ever heard of oscar grant

Honestly, I had to look up that name.  Ok, the guy who was shot by mistake on the transit in Oakland when he was resisting arrest.  I do remember that…but not because of the riots.  If I recall, justice was served for the idiot cop that accidentally shot the kid.  But I didn’t even know a small riot occurred.  Hell, I didn’t even know a protest occurred.  Riots didn’t help that situation one bit either way.  What were the riots trying to accomplish anyway?  Does anyone really know?

riots are the reason anyone’s ever heard of rodney king

Actually, the George Holliday video made Rodney King famous far before the L.A. riots occurred.  And what good were the L.A. riots again?  What did they accomplish exactly?  Well, it sure wasn’t the truth - that a drunken parolee went on a high-speed car chase with police through residential neighborhoods, threatened officers, resisted arrest, and charged at arresting officers.   Good job L.A. Riots.  Everyone learned nothing from your looting, arson, and murder.

riots are the reason gays can have bars

You do realize that gays have probably owned bars for decades, if not centuries.  The difference about the famous Stonewall bar was that it was a Mafia joint that was operating without liquor license, allowing lewd conduct, extorting people, and taking police bribes.  A classy place to say the least. Nonetheless, the riots that occurred that night did not stop police raids of gay bars.  All it accomplished was creating more fodder for activists…like all riots.

riots are the reason there’s no king of france

Are…are you condoning the riots of the French Revolution?  Where the Governor of the Bastille was beaten, shot, stabbed, decapitated?

Or were you referring to the Reign of Terror where 30 - 40,000 people were executed if they did not follow along with the rest of the revolutionary rioters.  That really worked out for Robespierre, let me tell you.

riots are the reason the united states that you pretend to know fuck all about even exists

Riots never contributed to the forming of the United States nor did “terrorism" as some allude.  Sure some small riots and tar & feathering occurred, but it was the actual patriots who decided to formally separate from empire that we can all thank.

Also, riots back then were directed towards the tax collectors and British imports, not colonial neighborhood stores and businesses.  Today’s rioters are about self-aggrandizement and mob justice.  They have no real goals.

"riots solve nothing" my ass.  grow the fuck up and start noticing shit outside your neighborhood, child.

"Grow the fuck up"?  It is you who is trying to twist history to suit your immature and uncivilized methods for change.  Name one solid thing a riot has solved aside from creating a more militarized police force and even more pointless activists.  You can’t, because riots have attributed nothing but violence, destruction, and perpetuated struggle.

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy.  Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth.  Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate.  In fact, violence merely increases hate.  So it goes.  Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.  Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that.  Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.

Aziz Ansari (via newtmasdoesthedo)

This is probably why it’s a bad idea to take life advice from comedians.  Feminism is a part of a larger movement for equality so the conversations would probably be more like this…

"I’m a doctor"

"Oh you’re a dermatologist?"

"No I’m a general practitioner, the dermatologist is over…"

"WHY IS DERMATOLOGIST SUCH A BAD WORD TO PEOPLE?!"

If you’re talking about sexism and misogyny, something that directly and intrinsically affects women, why is a woman’s experiences irrelevant? In a court case, you wouldn’t argue a witness’s testimony was irrelevant because “they don’t have any facts or evidence.”

The allegory is evidence.

And besides, the majority of the feminist movement DOES cite facts, evidences and logic.

Having a vagina is not a prerequisite to being a woman. Some women don’t have vaginas. Some people with vaginas are not women.

This is a religious belief held by the SJW cult, similar to the christian belief that a person can be ‘born again’ and become ‘sinless’ just by asking zombie Jesus for it.

Neither belief has a basis in reality; in fact, both beliefs actually rely heavily on ignoring observable reality in favor of personal preference/bias.

The SJWs subscribe to a religion, and objectivity is that religion’s devil.

If you’re talking about sexism and misogyny, something that directly and intrinsically affects women, why is a woman’s experiences irrelevant?

ANY experience, presented as an objective truth, with no other supporting evidence IS irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what the person making the claim has between their legs.

THE PROBLEM is that too many people respond to a woman ‘talking about her experiences’ like Moses responded to a rather talkative burning bush…

 In a court case, you wouldn’t argue a witness’s testimony was irrelevant because “they don’t have any facts or evidence.”

WHAT?!?!?

That is EXACTLY what I would do:

Witness Impeachment

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?

The allegory is evidence.

….

You’re trolling me right?

An allegory is symbolic. (i.e.  FICTIONAL)

HOW CAN SOMETHING FICTIONAL BE USED AS EVID-…..

I forgot I was talking to an SJW.

And besides, the majority of the feminist movement DOES cite facts, evidences and logic.

Actually, -

(and this is ‘in my experience’ so if you disagree with me you’ll get kicked out of your cult)

 - the majority of the feminist movement makes sweeping hyperbolic generalizations while providing little to no evidence or logic to support them…. like you just did.

Common sense is subjective

Only in the sense that the quality of your ‘common sense’ is dependent upon the quality of your intellect.

Yeesh. Taking this one by one I guess. Right back at you with the ton of bull though.

Accusing SJWs of being a religious cult for believing in a scientifically proven fact, while at the same time being in complete denial of this fact, is pretty ironic wouldn’t you say?

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-science-of-transgender-20140730

http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx

^ Here are some basic, super mainstream, scientifically approved links for your brain. Edumacate your-ignorant-self.

Experiences presented as objective truth are irrelevant? Maybe in some cases, but not this one. Let me present a claim with completely allegorical evidence and you tell me whether I need more than just my personal experiences:

"My roommate is incredibly messy. His side of the room is always cluttered, his desk is covered with trash, and just the other day he ‘unpacked’ his bag by throwing everything inside under his bed."

You can argue the semantics of whether that meets the definition of messy or not, but the points stand that 1: Because I am his roommate, in a position to consistently observe his behavior and habits, my testimonial evidence should be weighted heavily. And 2: If my reliable testimony contradicts that of someone, for example my RA, who comes into the room for a split second on a particularly clean day and says “it’s clean,” then mine still should be assumed a more correct assessment because of my position. There could be other reasons for being irrelevant, but being so close to the issue at hand makes me the ideal person to speak on it.

So tell me, do you honestly think that a woman, who has spent 20+ years of her life being a woman, who has faced regular misogyny, who constantly talks to other women and listens to their experiences, wielding the combined evidence of over a hundred years of sexism is LESS equipped to voice her opinion on the subject than a male “expert” who has spent 5 years learning about gender studies and who has never experienced sexism in his life?

Also, maybe I was unclear when I said facts and evidence. I didn’t mean that witnesses didn’t need facts and evidence period, I meant factuality outside of their testimony. Sure, if you’re an expert witness then you will be expected to be an expert on the subject, of course, and present your testimony based on outside evidence. But a witness who comes to the stand, swears to tell the truth, and states they “saw the accused murder the victim in question,” should not have their testimony made irrelevant because they did not have any outside evidence.

Witness impeachment, as per the wikipedia article you sent, is done due to one of five witness fallacies: Bias, inconsistent statement, character, competency or contradiction. None of these are legitimately applicable to your claims about feminism.

Oh, haha, brain fart there for me regarding allegory. I meant to say anecdote, sorry.

And actually actually, how is the experience of an outsider to a movement more legitimate than that of a person in that movement? I ask you, how many experiences have you had with feminists? How many friendships? How long have you been interacting with and acknowledging criticism of feminism?

"Common sense" is the idea that all people share a common understanding of the way the world works. It’s very obvious, just between you and I, that this is not the case. All people’s experiences shape the way they see the world. For some it is only common sense to research how they are spending their money so that they can make the best impact. For others it is common sense that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, so being picky about spending money is silly.

TL:DR except for the first part with the links.

And I must repeat myelf:

You: "Having a vagina is not a prerequisite to being a woman. Some women don’t have vaginas. Some people with vaginas are not women."

Me: "This is a RELIGIOUS BELIEF held by the SJW CULT, similar to the christian belief that a person can be ‘born again’ and become ‘sinless’ just by asking zombie Jesus for it."

And the link you provided is just glorious... because it actually hurts your argument.

MUH EVIDENCES

I'm curious, did you actually read it before you attempted to use it as evidence?

Nvm, I forgot I was talking to an SJW Cult Member.

Facts are the devil right?

Allow me to highlight the part of the article you obviously chose to ignore:

But it's premature to draw conclusions from those studies, warns Olson, since "those parts of the brain are shaped by performance and experience," and so may be a product of nurture, not nature. And despite the big genetic finding, it's unclear what precise role genetics plays, since a recent survey of identical twins found that only in 20 percent of cases did both twins turn out transgender, despite having identical DNA.

You are a cult member, though, so I'm not surprised that you were so quick to latch on to something that seemed to validate you specious claims.

You don't need feminism, you need the police.

What the hell is feminism going to do about pedophiles that our legal system isn't already doing???

Wait, is that the next issue feminists are planning to co-opt?

But the good news is you can write whatever ever you want and cite whatever you want (Hell, cite the back of a box of fruit loops!), because it's all bullshit anyway!!!