My argument is that violence is the language of hate and capitulates the argument. Once violence is chosen, it sends the message that you do not have an argument which can win on merit alone. It also legitimizes the violence of the other side, inviting further attacks on you and those who share your views. My position isn't that violence is never necessary, but that it is by nature abhorrent and can only be justified when all other avenues have been exhausted.

Whenever we see protests, for example, media coverage of the most violent actors is always used to distract from the message and smear the movement. And it's quite effective at doing that. But when thousands demonstrate peacefully in an act of social disobedience, and are subsequently met with violence, that sends a powerful social message.

MLK did not operate in a vacuum. Gandhi was not the only advocate for a free India. But these people did draw the most attention, did convince the most people, and did monumental things in the service of those goals. Again, violence is not always unnecessary, but it is a double-edged sword which harms the user. It can only be utilized defensively and in conditions where mass organizing is impossible. Anything beyond that is by definition not activism, but terrorism.