I'm not arguing with Frederick Douglass. Even though we might individually do something nice for someone else just to be nice, just because you care about them, politically this doesn't get things done. Indeed, power cedes nothing without a demand.

What I am arguing about is the form that this demand takes. My claim is that, especially recently, unreasonable demands are largely not met, and antisocial behavior that goes beyond what is necessary to demonstrate the strength of one's feeling is usually counterproductive.

So you bolded demand a bunch of times, but I never argued against demands. Not even against sitting in government offices!

Here is a violent disrespectful demand: *smash window* gimme a %#*&@( elevator now you bigoted moron!

Here's a peaceful, respectful demand: *sit in front of door* *chant* Elevators now! Disabled, not dishuman!

If people come back with a proposal to build ramps instead, *smash more windows* *burn a building down*

Or: *still sit in front of door* Ramps where effective, elevators when necessary!

Peaceful doesn't mean submissive. It just means nonviolent, in the old (not "language is violence") sense of the word. Respect doesn't mean assent--it just means you treat people as people, not as enemies or obstacles.

You referenced war and blood--I agree that this would be neither peaceful nor respectful. But you haven't shown that either war or blood were part of improving conditions in this case. Sometimes war and blood are necessary, but glorifying the war and blood as the easy path or the necessary path, instead of recognizing that it's counterproductive to resolution but can be necessary to break intransigent application of power, is not just wrong, it's dangerous and leads to pointless harm, suffering, and impedes the advancement of rights.

Unless you actually literally overthrow the power (e.g. Communist revolution), at some point you have to appeal to people's morality.