If you're ever in a position where being white puts in a disadvantaged societal position, you'll have a better understanding of King.
However, did you really want to talk about the "content" of your argument regarding why King was a great man? Should I pull out the fiery speeches, the recriminations, the ones where he talks about repression? What I said was the more polite version of what I felt. For example, I could have said that you were being a total jerk by trying to silence rhetoric using words from a man you obviously haven't studied in any detail and don't have the slightest inkling of what he meant or stood for, and were doing it for the completely selfish reason of trying to keep from reading words that you didn't like. Instead, I offered a mildly-worded caution that people might take your opinion as being less than authoritative.
I would carefully consider what several different white people might say about King. For example. Brian Lynchehaun posts carefully considered and knowledgeable thoughts on social justice issues from time to time. You are not on that list.
I didn't judge you at all. I pointed out that I accept your take on King as being authoritative, and that you weren't in a good position to understand King. You seem to have hurt feeling, perhaps because you are so used to having your uninformed opinions treated as being worthwhile, which would be a measure of how much your uninformed opinions have been accepted in the past, aka, a measure of your privilege.
