One is Malcom X and the other way would be MLK. Which one do you think would work better?

MLK said this:

"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."

Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

So get that whitewashing of MLK out of here.

Other part:

Some people are angry. So what? Some people are right to be angry. But still so what? Have some self awareness about how people deal with each other. Very few people react well to anger, and I'd be suspicious of the ones who do. You will never get far going, "that thing you like sucks, you better let me change it". You might get a good portion of what you want if you instead go, "I could probably make that thing you like even better, here let me show you".

See, I don't buy this. This is a frequent excuse from conservatives to hold back progressive issues (and mainly, an argument touted by pro-GGers, and another reason why I see them as right wingers). That's actually THE argument of conservatism in regards to many social (and economic/political) issues.

Now, to be exact--why I don't buy it? It almost always comes from privileged people. Of course it's easy to say "you know maybe you shouldn't be so angry and aggressive about this, let's talk this out calmly" as a fed, relatively healthy person with a home, to a poor person demanding the opportunity to feed themselves. Same way the capitalists in the 19th century had the fucking balls to say the same thing to the starving and extremely hard working workers/unionists when they asked for better wages and safer environments.

Fuck off that high horse. People's lives are effected here, some are even at stake (when you talk about economic issues especially) for crying out loud. You don't have the right, IMO, to tell a person in that situation to "calm down". These people have been told to "calm down" for a long, long time. And now that progress is about to be made--whether you want it or not--you have the balls to ask for them to delay it? Why? Because it'll hurt you? Where were you when trans people (as they still are) being killed at alarmingly high rates? Where were you when ethnic minorities keep being falsely thrown into jail for BS and racist policies? Etc, etc, etc.

Sorry for the brief rant, most of that deals with other issues not exactly related to GG. However, the same logic I was talking about is used to undermine people who want diversity in gaming.