The white moderates MLK warned us about

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Or they'll be bothered enough to cry on tweeter about it.

I know conservatives long for the day when only money is speech. But currently speech is speech, and if I see one of my employees after they do something I disagree with I'm going to let them know. It's far more effective than sending an email or letter, which will result in me getting an auto reply before an intern sticks it in the circular file.

A bit of a sideline to conversation but money is effectively speech. Newspapers don’t print themselves, TV ads don’t produce and broadcast themselves, and online website ads don’t spontaneously generate. All are created by, distributed by, and paid for by someone. Thus saying money isn’t speech not only is wrong in a practical sense, it doesn’t even make sense conceptually.
 
Last edited:

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
You still think the conservatives can reconcile anything? You are a fool or a liar. THere is nobody to work with on the other side of the aisle. Trump said as much about the current negotiations for immigration reform. You saw what they did with Garland - and you think there is any good faith left in the Republican Party aka Cult of Trump? No sir - that party is dead. You might have had a point if you had your finger on the pulse of reality, but you don't.

Voter suppression, wanting to end due process, stripping kids from parents for minor crimes, creating concentration camps for little kids, threatening violence to liberals at events from the top, spewing racism at events, normalizing the entire inferiority of a massive class of Americans and immigrants in the US, wanting to end political correctness lol, lock up political opponents, the list goes on....They have destroyed civility already.

if the time hasn't come yet to be not civil back, it sure is coming fast. you have aligned yourself with evil so it just seems that this is all normal to you.

The only single thing that I would argue to figure out is how it will affect you at the ballot box. But as far as if the Republicans deserve it? Oh yes, they've earned it full stop. Put it this way, if the Dems win back the Senate this fall and Trump gets to nominate a justice the next day, I hope they obstruct that shit until he is impeached or elected out of office. And it would be just, and civil and right.

^ And this is why we can't have nice things. A sizable amount of the electorate on both sides have effectively become soccer hooligans who see the other side as evil. Not misguided, favoring the wrong set of tradeoffs, or whatever but evil. And if your side wins you'll get to write it in the history books as that side being evil, but that's a big if. No consideration given to what things might be like if you pick a fight with "evil" and you lose.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,643
50,876
136
It was enough of the population for the left to be surprised by him winning the election. Putting yourself into your own echo chamber where you don't need to be confronted by differing opinions is fine but it does tend to lead to being surprised when those opinions you exclude yourself from hearing win at the ballot box. Of course if you're merely going to say there's no possible common ground between your policy aims and those of a Trump, etc. or that although they may support a policy objective which could be reconciled with yours but you feel their underlying reasons for that objective have so poisoned the well you can't possibly work with the, then so be it.

To me this is akin to people getting divorced who have become so angry with the other person they'll do things counter to their own objectives just to "get back at" or hurt the other person. If it's more important to you that a symbolic stand against someone eating a restaurant be done than sitting down with them to discuss how immigration reform could happen then enjoy that "moral victory" of kicking someone out a restaurant for the few seconds the satisfaction lasts. They'll just go to another restaurant and won't be bothered much at all. If the option was "get my policy in place and not be able to eat at restaurant X" or "be able to eat at restaurant X but not get my policy in place" do you think they're going to select the later?

Have you considered if this sentence applies to you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ivwshane

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,643
50,876
136
A bit of a sideline to conversation but money is effectively speech. Newspapers don’t print themselves, TV ads don’t produce and broadcast themselves, and online website ads don’t spontaneously generate.

Those are all mediums to transmit speech and you're now talking third order effects. Money isn't the speech, the newspaper isn't even the speech. The speech is the writing on the sheets of the newspaper. What you (and conservatives in the judiciary) want us to do is take a third jump where the money that pays for the printing of the newspaper which carries the speech is speech. If that's the case then why not take a fourth jump? There's no particular reason to stop at just three, after all. The means by which to procure the money to print the paper to carry the speech is also speech, therefore the government can't regulate work. Reductio ad absurdum.

All are created by, distributed by, and paid for by someone. Thus saying money isn’t speech not only is wrong in a practical sense, it doesn’t even make sense conceptually.

By this logic money is basically all things at all times as it can directly influence most things in our society.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Those are all mediums to transmit speech and you're now talking third order effects. Money isn't the speech, the newspaper isn't even the speech. The speech is the writing on the sheets of the newspaper. What you (and conservatives in the judiciary) want us to do is take a third jump where the money that pays for the printing of the newspaper which carries the speech is speech. If that's the case then why not take a fourth jump? There's no particular reason to stop at just three, after all. The means by which to procure the money to print the paper to carry the speech is also speech, therefore the government can't regulate work. Reductio ad absurdum.



By this logic money is basically all things at all times as it can directly influence most things in our society.

Okay explain how you would go about this then. Before Citizens United (which is your big boogeyman) private citizens could use their money to run ads saying whatever they want and corporations could run "issue ads" (ads saying "tell Candidate X not to vote for the ABC bill"). Now post-Citizens United the private citizens can still use their money to run ads and corporations can run ads stumping for candidates (ads saying "tell Candidate X not to vote for the ABC bill *and* don't vote for Candidate X either"). I'm failing to see how that's a grand threat to civilization and our republic.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
27,654
26,755
136
Glenn's perfectly civil society in action:

Poor person: Do you mind if I die on this street where you may have to gaze upon my corpse?

Glenn: I do mind, please go to that dark alley other there and please don't ever speak to your betters again. May you die in quiet dignity without bothering anyone.

Poor person: Thank you so much, I won't disturb you again.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,643
50,876
136
Okay explain how you would go about this then. Before Citizens United (which is your big boogeyman) private citizens could use their money to run ads saying whatever they want and corporations could run "issue ads" (ads saying "tell Candidate X not to vote for the ABC bill"). Now post-Citizens United the private citizens can still use their money to run ads and corporations can run ads stumping for candidates (ads saying "tell Candidate X not to vote for the ABC bill *and* don't vote for Candidate X either"). I'm failing to see how that's a grand threat to civilization and our republic.

I would say that the fact that our current public policy in a democracy does not even remotely resemble the preferred public policy of the average member of that democracy seems to show we have a problem.

While I think there's a strong legal case to limit campaign finance much more severely than it ever has in the past due to the obvious corruption it's created I imagine the easiest way to combat this problem is through public financing of elections. That way you aren't stopping the rich interests from speaking you're just ensuring they can't drown everyone else out.
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,635
3,509
136
Okay explain how you would go about this then. Before Citizens United (which is your big boogeyman) private citizens could use their money to run ads saying whatever they want and corporations could run "issue ads" (ads saying "tell Candidate X not to vote for the ABC bill"). Now post-Citizens United the private citizens can still use their money to run ads and corporations can run ads stumping for candidates (ads saying "tell Candidate X not to vote for the ABC bill *and* don't vote for Candidate X either"). I'm failing to see how that's a grand threat to civilization and our republic.

And I'm failing to see how someone walking up to their employee and talking (for free) is the end of the republic.

I imagine eventually they'll all just hang out at private clubs (like mar a lago) or fundraisers where they only have to interact with the donor class.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
I would say that the fact that our current public policy in a democracy does not even remotely resemble the preferred public policy of the average member of that democracy seems to show we have a problem.

While I think there's a strong legal case to limit campaign finance much more severely than it ever has in the past due to the obvious corruption it's created I imagine the easiest way to combat this problem is through public financing of elections. That way you aren't stopping the rich interests from speaking you're just ensuring they can't drown everyone else out.

LOL so you want restrictions more appropriate to the 1960s than today? Sure, go ahead and "public finance" elections, hell it may even lead to a decrease of radio and TV ads which would be welcomed. It won't do a damn thing to stop use of big data, voter micro-segmentation for targeted marketing, internet/social media based marketing, and all the other channels to develop, target, and deliver content designed to influence elections to the people suitable for that influence. If you think that giving some rando citizen free air on the local OTA TV channel during garbage time is actually going to influence votes or "level the playing field" then have at it.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,643
50,876
136
LOL so you want restrictions more appropriate to the 1960s than today? Sure, go ahead and "public finance" elections, hell it may even lead to a decrease of radio and TV ads which would be welcomed. It won't do a damn thing to stop use of big data, voter micro-segmentation for targeted marketing, internet/social media based marketing, and all the other channels to develop, target, and deliver content designed to influence elections to the people suitable for that influence. If you think that giving some rando citizen free air on the local OTA TV channel during garbage time is actually going to influence votes or "level the playing field" then have at it.

Rando free citizen free air time? Huh? Who said anything about that?

I'm not sure what post you're arguing against but it sure isn't mine.
 

Noah Abrams

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2018
1,041
109
76
To me this is akin to people getting divorced who have become so angry with the other person they'll do things counter to their own objectives just to "get back at" or hurt the other person. If it's more important to you that a symbolic stand against someone eating a restaurant be done than sitting down with them to discuss how immigration reform could happen then enjoy that "moral victory" of kicking someone out a restaurant for the few seconds the satisfaction lasts.

I agree with you in general, that this kind of behavior in public spaces isn't helpful, isn't good. From a practical viewpoint, it is not even good politically for the left. But talking about discussions, the kind of Republicans with who immigration can be discussed rationally are dinosaurs now. Gone. The crowd in control of the R party isn't interested in the pros and cons of immigration. Their aim is to reduce the number of non-European immigrants to the country, regardless of anything else. I do not think there is much to discuss there.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
I agree with you in general, that this kind of behavior in public spaces isn't helpful, isn't good. From a practical viewpoint, it is not even good politically for the left. But talking about discussions, the kind of Republicans with who immigration can be discussed rationally are dinosaurs now. Gone. The crowd in control of the R party isn't interested in the pros and cons of immigration. Their aim is to reduce the number of non-European immigrants to the country, regardless of anything else. I do not think there is much to discuss there.

That might be mostly true but there's still room for common ground. One way would be to separate out the issues of legal versus illegal immigration. Since legal immigration is set by quotas (currently set at 675k annually) there's room for rational conversations about whether that number should be changed (I'm a libertarian rather than R but feel the limits should be doubled, tripled, whatever to more closely match demand) and who should receive priority in that 675k or other number (should it be family members? those who possess the skills with the highest economic value? should we attempt to create a certain amount of diversity among the 675k or be solely "merit" based?). All these are prime grounds for conversation even with an admin as seemingly anti-immigrant as Trump's.
 

Noah Abrams

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2018
1,041
109
76
That might be mostly true but there's still room for common ground. One way would be to separate out the issues of legal versus illegal immigration. Since legal immigration is set by quotas (currently set at 675k annually) there's room for rational conversations about whether that number should be changed (I'm a libertarian rather than R but feel the limits should be doubled, tripled, whatever to more closely match demand) and who should receive priority in that 675k or other number (should it be family members? those who possess the skills with the highest economic value? should we attempt to create a certain amount of diversity among the 675k or be solely "merit" based?). All these are prime grounds for conversation even with an admin as seemingly anti-immigrant as Trump's.

Yes, all of those are important discussions and decisions about our country's future. Could not agree more with you. But as you may know, the current guys actually want to REDUCE legal immigration by a huge percentage. There is only one reason for it, for a country that needs more immigrants because of falling birth rates. You and I both know the reason for that.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
The quote from the OP is being taken out of context and or misunderstood. That quote was about people who wanted equality, but though that giving it too quickly would be destabilizing. It was about people pushing back against direct action. MLK did not advocate violence, but peaceful protesting. He fully understood that violence would be used against them, but he did not advocate violence. He was not calling for less civility, but, rather he was saying that people were slowing things down because they did not want to upset racists.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,008
8,041
136

Let's see, the Democrats you condemn are...
  • House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi
  • Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer
  • New Jersey Senator Cory Booker
  • Former Obama advisor David Axelrod
  • Obama’s DoE Secretary Arne Duncan
Followed up by The Washington Post, CNN commentators, and others. That's a lovely list of opponents you have.

Did you realize the article brought up the plight of black anti-segregationists and the violence they endured? Are you jealous that you have not yet stooped to the methods of white segregationists? If only those damned white moderates weren't calling for civility, you could... what, march on the streets and do what you really want to your political opponents?

Your "WAR!" cries sound true to what they are. Shallow promises of peace while inciting conflict do not absolve you of what you're itching for, and what you condemn Democrat leaders for wanting to avoid. As I've been saying, when you get into people's faces for the crime of being a political opponent, there will be a slip up. Someone's going to get hurt, and each time that'll escalate future conflicts. It begins as being harassed, and ends in blood.

It is right and proper to condemn you and others who cry for that blood.

White segregationists were using conflict for a policy. To an end. The people of the United States defeated them in a lesser show of force. Far greater wrongs than today were righted in the 1960s without stooping to their level. Without becoming them. Is that too good, too clean, for you today? Maybe you are too blind to realize where this will lead, or maybe you just don't care.

But some of us still have the hope to believe in our country, and we're here to defeat Trump through elections.
 

Noah Abrams

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2018
1,041
109
76
The quote from the OP is being taken out of context and or misunderstood. That quote was about people who wanted equality, but though that giving it too quickly would be destabilizing. It was about people pushing back against direct action. MLK did not advocate violence, but peaceful protesting. He fully understood that violence would be used against them, but he did not advocate violence. He was not calling for less civility, but, rather he was saying that people were slowing things down because they did not want to upset racists.

Yes, the OP did not understand the context of what MLK was saying. His main principle was to awaken the conscience of the white man.

When you display ugliness towards anyone - no matter who that person is - what you are really showing to the world is the ugliness inside you, which you are not aware of. You are harming yourself.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,548
15,425
136
The quote from the OP is being taken out of context and or misunderstood. That quote was about people who wanted equality, but though that giving it too quickly would be destabilizing. It was about people pushing back against direct action. MLK did not advocate violence, but peaceful protesting. He fully understood that violence would be used against them, but he did not advocate violence. He was not calling for less civility, but, rather he was saying that people were slowing things down because they did not want to upset racists.

Fuck you and the straw man you have sex with.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,548
15,425
136
I give you exhibit A of exactly what MLK was referring to.

Thanks guys!

Let's see, the Democrats you condemn are...
  • House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi
  • Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer
  • New Jersey Senator Cory Booker
  • Former Obama advisor David Axelrod
  • Obama’s DoE Secretary Arne Duncan
Followed up by The Washington Post, CNN commentators, and others. That's a lovely list of opponents you have.

Did you realize the article brought up the plight of black anti-segregationists and the violence they endured? Are you jealous that you have not yet stooped to the methods of white segregationists? If only those damned white moderates weren't calling for civility, you could... what, march on the streets and do what you really want to your political opponents?

Your "WAR!" cries sound true to what they are. Shallow promises of peace while inciting conflict do not absolve you of what you're itching for, and what you condemn Democrat leaders for wanting to avoid. As I've been saying, when you get into people's faces for the crime of being a political opponent, there will be a slip up. Someone's going to get hurt, and each time that'll escalate future conflicts. It begins as being harassed, and ends in blood.

It is right and proper to condemn you and others who cry for that blood.

White segregationists were using conflict for a policy. To an end. The people of the United States defeated them in a lesser show of force. Far greater wrongs than today were righted in the 1960s without stooping to their level. Without becoming them. Is that too good, too clean, for you today? Maybe you are too blind to realize where this will lead, or maybe you just don't care.

But some of us still have the hope to believe in our country, and we're here to defeat Trump through elections.

Yes, the OP did not understand the context of what MLK was saying. His main principle was to awaken the conscience of the white man.

When you display ugliness towards anyone - no matter who that person is - what you are really showing to the world is the ugliness inside you, which you are not aware of. You are harming yourself.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
It remains hilarious that you have a background of 3 years worth of Trump rallies, always advocating open violence to all opposition, yet never a fucking peep from you. Never. Not one. It isn't even controversial. It isn't debatable. There remains only one source for the violent, uncivil discourse and action that has consumed this country, and you predictably choose to ignore it. Always pointing the finger elsewhere. Always.

Clean your own house first. Be an example. Stop being a shit.

This fool is clowning no one... I put him on ignore. I prefer poop flinging trolls to boring and predictable martyrs...
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

ewdotson

Golden Member
Oct 30, 2011
1,295
1,520
136
The quote from the OP is being taken out of context and or misunderstood. That quote was about people who wanted equality, but though that giving it too quickly would be destabilizing. It was about people pushing back against direct action. MLK did not advocate violence, but peaceful protesting. He fully understood that violence would be used against them, but he did not advocate violence. He was not calling for less civility, but, rather he was saying that people were slowing things down because they did not want to upset racists.
Why are you equating incivility with violence? Who's advocating *violence* from the left? I mean, I know there's a fringe out there who do, but I don't think anyone here is.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,548
15,425
136
Why are you equating incivility with violence? Who's advocating *violence* from the left? I mean, I know there's a fringe out there who do, but I don't think anyone here is.

No one is, including me, nor was MLK. But realibrad can't argue the merits so he makes up an argument he can argue against its his MO.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
Why are you equating incivility with violence? Who's advocating *violence* from the left? I mean, I know there's a fringe out there who do, but I don't think anyone here is.

To give context to MLK and what he said. MLK and the protesters could have easily been violent in defending themselves, and that is what you saw from people like Malcolm X before he became more moderate. MLK was not saying that people needed to be more aggressive. He was saying that there was nothing wrong with being assertive and waiting for equality helped nobody.

The reason for that is the OP he thinks Dems trying to be Civil are actually holding back progress, but that is not what the quote was saying at all.
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
Glenn's perfectly civil society in action:

Poor person: Do you mind if I die on this street where you may have to gaze upon my corpse?

Glenn: I do mind, please go to that dark alley other there and please don't ever speak to your betters again. May you die in quiet dignity without bothering anyone.

Poor person: Thank you so much, I won't disturb you again.

Sounds about right. What's your complaint? It also easier on the street cleaners.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,548
15,425
136
To give context to MLK and what he said. MLK and the protesters could have easily been violent in defending themselves, and that is what you saw from people like Malcolm X before he became more moderate. MLK was not saying that people needed to be more aggressive. He was saying that there was nothing wrong with being assertive and waiting for equality helped nobody.

The reason for that is the OP he thinks Dems trying to be Civil are actually holding back progress, but that is not what the quote was saying at all.

Oh so close! The bolded is a contradiction.