again: convincing anyone should not be your goal; you will only piss yourself off if you try and especially so if they're snarky or default to insults and the point of the quote is not to paint democrats in any light.

i don't know what your views are, but i used to be a liberal and this is how i see the quote as it pertains to what's happening right now and how material like it changed my views by engaging leftists on the lemmyverse and using it to challenging my own views:

...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...

we're being forced to pick between two genocide options. yes one has a chance at being worse than the other and that's not the point here. we're told that we MUST chose between these two options to enforce the peace through the barrel of a gun.

... who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action” ...

this one applies in multiple ways but the one that both pertains to this discourse and still matters is the two genocide choices we're being forced to select is manufactured since peace through violence is automatically not viable, so going third party is a direct action that moderates don't agree with; strongly.

... who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” ...

this speaks to the bulwark comment you shared: when they refuse to stop the genocide (or atleast attaching restrictions to the weapons) they're accelerating the issue so that we have to make a decision here and right now because "now is not the time" since the election's next week. this is intentionally done to push the narrative that "we vote now and then try to push a harris administration later" and that seems reasonable on the surface given the circumstances; but those circumstances were manufactured to force a time table to works in the genocider's favor.

also: pushing an administration on something that lobbyist work against has never worked and convincing yourself that it can only helps push to conversation towards that genocider time table.

additionally; we've been voting for the lesser evil for a few generations now and doing so has painted us into this corner of a choice between 2 genocides. there is no indications that taking the same action that we have always been taking are going to yield different results this time and this genocide along with the erosions of legal protections on a variety of issues is sufficient argument that things will continue to devolve if we keep doing the same thing as we have been doing.

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

a deeper understanding requires time & effort; it's much easier to skim the information to make a decision and doing so perpetuates a shallow understanding were we don't know the recent history that explains why we're being forced to chose between 2 genocides.

when people of shallow understanding get together because their views align it creates an environment where dissension is not tolerated; especially when it's properly educated and informed because that creates a counter reality with enough substance to rival the shallow understanding groupthink. the number of people who only skim the information will always vastly outnumber the people who put the time & effort in and that creates a world where there's an "obvious" right answer from the majority's perspective and the few weirdos who have learned of that counter reality are just silly because they won't accept "common sense."