|
It seemed like Chemda and Elsa misinterpreted Michael's point as if Michael was suggesting that direct action shouldn't cause people to feel threatened in any way at all (ie their perceptions/mindset/way of life/income, etc) but of course that has to happen for any meaningful change to occur, and Michael never disagreed with that. He was just saying, don't make people worry about their own safety in the process because that's detrimental to your cause.
Chemda's right, both direct action and legislative change are necessary and valuable. Elsa's right that getting up in people's faces does have a real, immediate impact and that's important, but Michael's also right that to ensure that the changes that are made become permanent, they have to be implemented through legislative change.
Michael offered excellent, articulate arguments but also made Elsa feel attacked and invalidated with some poorly chosen words and unnecessary insults. I suspect Elsa left frustrated, which is a shame because she was making interesting and important points too.
All three people here are on the same side but got caught up arguing about the best way to achieve the changes they want made. Any change in the right direction is a good thing, as long as you don't make people concerned for their physical safety in the process.
|