Wouldn't it be better to make a rebuttal in your own words instead of spamming links?

Huh, it's really weird that a group focused on eradicating systemic racism would choose to highlight the racist moments. How strange.

Yes, to their own disadvantage. My argument is that they would persuade many more people to their cause. Is your argument that they shouldn't do that, or that you don't think it would work?

If you think you can do better than the activists for a given cause, I suggest you get out there and do it so we can see the superiority of your position. Otherwise, I think it's basically the same as armchair quarterbacking: people who have less expertise and no stake acting as if they know better than the people deeply involved in the problem.

We're having a discussion, and I asked a fairly direct question. If your response is to stop the discussion because you think no one is qualified here to discuss it, then you are welcome to not participate.

I'm not saying you can't discuss the topic. I'm saying that this particular argument is based in false assumptions, and is anyway moot. Pointing out the sterility of this line of discussion is me participating in the discussion, thanks.

Your response was roughly "if you think you know better, go out there and show us how superior your way is." It was condescending and, from my read, doesn't highlight any false assumptions.

If your point is that you're not seeing my point, I think we agree.

Or, a group focused on accusations of racism would choose to cherry-pick incidents to give the perception of racism, and diverting attention away from incidents that might dispel this perception.