4 ms·
yes! i wanted to past the whole paragraph without elision and i didnt feel like specifically going into how it implies that for some reason Dr. King's speeches
by ixtli 5y ago
yes! i wanted to past the whole paragraph without elision and i didnt feel like specifically going into how it implies that for some reason Dr. King's speeches dont constitute academic development or that, futher, this ignores the last 200 years of marxist-leninist writing and discussion on the topic. But as i said in my edit, i don't think im qualified to discuss matters of legalism. Its just a little nuts, to my eyes, that someone can look at all of these people who developed their worldview at least partially by study and say "why is no one talking about this!"
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- exo-pla-net 5y agoDo you know what normative theorizing means? The article in its first few sentences addresses both the academic and non-academic discussion surrounding riots: "Yet these defenders focus on riots' effectiveness rather than its legitimacy. They do not defend rioting on normative grounds. The lack of normative theorizing in academic scholarship about riots is even more striking."