The white moderates MLK warned us about

[realibrad]

Oh so close! The bolded is a contradiction.

How is it a contradiction? Are you saying that incivility was what gained MLK the progress he wanted? MLK was a very civil person. The problem was that he was pushing for equality when people did not want it, and or thought that giving it all quickly would cause problems. He was saying that going slow was immoral and also not needed. He did not say that people needed to be less civil.

 

[ivwshane]

How is it a contradiction? Are you saying that incivility was what gained MLK the progress he wanted? MLK was a very civil person. The problem was that he was pushing for equality when people did not want it, and or thought that giving it all quickly would cause problems. He was saying that going slow was immoral and also not needed. He did not say that people needed to be less civil.

You should start posting a lot less and focus on your reading comprehension skills, it would save you and everyone else from wasting their time.

I'll help you out here but I expect, in return, that you take my advice seriously.

Civility is a matter of perspective. MLK was complaining about people telling him and his movement how and when they should protest, the same as how some here have been doing. MLK was not advocating for violence nor was I or have I ever.

 

[realibrad]

You should start posting a lot less and focus on your reading comprehension skills, it would save you and everyone else from wasting their time.

I'll help you out here but I expect, in return, that you take my advice seriously.

Civility is a matter of perspective. MLK was complaining about people telling him and his movement how and when they should protest, the same as how some here have been doing. MLK was not advocating for violence nor was I or have I ever.

You speak of reading comprehension, but where did I say you were calling for violence? What you did do was justify being less civil, and that is what I was pushing back against.

 

[ivwshane]

You speak of reading comprehension, but where did I say you were calling for violence? What you did do was justify being less civil, and that is what I was pushing back against.

Like I said, you should post less and work on your reading comprehension. For some practice, can you show me where in the post you just quoted that I said you claimed I wanted violence (that's rhetorical)?

Now shut the fuck up.

 

[realibrad]

Like I said, you should post less and work on your reading comprehension. For some practice, can you show me where in the post you just quoted that I said you claimed I wanted violence (that's rhetorical)?

Now shut the fuck up.

Hey guy, what is this?

MLK was not advocating for violence nor was I or have I ever.

Did you just throw that in for no reason?

 

[ivwshane]

Like I said, you should post less and work on your reading comprehension. For some practice, can you show me where in the post you just quoted that I said you claimed I wanted violence (that's rhetorical)?

Now shut the fuck up.

Hey guy, what is this?



Did you just throw that in for no reason?

Now shut the fuck up.

 

[cytg111]

https://twitter.com/WernerTwertzog/status/900382564787122177

"Dear America: You are waking up, as Germany once did, to the awareness that 1/3 of your people would kill another 1/3, while 1/3 watches."

;(

 

[glenn1]

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.

Besides the widespread support including many, many on this forum for the "punch a Nazi" slogan and people who carry it out? Or is that outside the scope of what you define as violence?

 

[ivwshane]

We've got a nazi supporter over here folks!

 

[cytg111]

Besides the widespread support including many, many on this forum for the "punch a Nazi" slogan and people who carry it out? Or is that outside the scope of what you define as violence?

What? Widespread many many what? You are talking like Trump. Many people say this.

 

[1sikbITCH]

What worries me is that at this pace some group is going to over press their welcome and somebody is going to get hurt.

Come on folks. This is not a new topic. You're either completely against racists and fascism or you're cool with it. Nobody gets a pass on this one. We need to listen to the voices of the past:

"In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
Reverend Martin Luther King

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
Martin Niemöller

"We must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men."
Boondock Saints

 

[ewdotson]

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.

I think this all boils down to how you define "aggressive" and "assertive". I mean, MLK was very clear elsewhere in the letter that the entire point of direct action was to "create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue." Even while sticking to the principles of non-violence, I think one could reasonably argue that that requires a certain measure of aggressiveness. Certainly I don't think that actions such as politely refusing to serve administration officials at a restaurant are notably more "aggressive" that the sit-ins that MLK organized. YMMV and all that jazz.

 

[realibrad]

I think this all boils down to how you define "aggressive" and "assertive". I mean, MLK was very clear elsewhere in the letter that the entire point of direct action was to "create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue." Even while sticking to the principles of non-violence, I think one could reasonably argue that that requires a certain measure of aggressiveness. Certainly I don't think that actions such as politely refusing to serve administration officials at a restaurant are notably more "aggressive" that the sit-ins that MLK organized. YMMV and all that jazz.

The goal of MLK was to show the society how doing normal civil things would lead to unequal treatment. He want people to have to confront the inequality and racism that was often hidden. Its also not aggressive, it is assertive. I don't want to get into definitions, but if you look at the synonyms there is a pretty clear difference.

MLK was for sure looking for confrontation. He wanted to provoke action on the other side. He did this not by being extreme, violent, or uncivil. He did it by simply doing things that should have been allowed. What is being argued for now in this thread is casting off civility by using MLK. MLK spent a lot of time trying to convert Malcolm X because he felt it was very important not to be anything other than assertive and civil.

 

[ivwshane]

The goal of MLK was to show the society how doing normal civil things would lead to unequal treatment. He want people to have to confront the inequality and racism that was often hidden. Its also not aggressive, it is assertive. I don't want to get into definitions, but if you look at the synonyms there is a pretty clear difference.

MLK was for sure looking for confrontation. He wanted to provoke action on the other side. He did this not by being extreme, violent, or uncivil. He did it by simply doing things that should have been allowed. What is being argued for now in this thread is casting off civility by using MLK. MLK spent a lot of time trying to convert Malcolm X because he felt it was very important not to be anything other than assertive and civil.

Nope! Fuck you and the straw man you road in on!

 

[glenn1]

What? Widespread many many what? You are talking like Trump. Many people say this.

If you even bothered to look you'd find examples on ATPN ranging from random wishes in unrelated threads to punch Nazis (including by those who have posted in this thread like the one below) to entire threads about the subject with dozens of ATPN posters chiming in their support for it.

oh wow so Nazi-punching is a felony in this country. Weird. I would think that Nazi-punching would be more of a pleasant, family-friendly weekend outing!

 

[Victorian Gray]

If you even bothered to look you'd find examples on ATPN ranging from random wishes in unrelated threads to punch Nazis (including by those who have posted in this thread like the one below) to entire threads about the subject with dozens of ATPN posters chiming in their support for it.

Go hug a nazi. It will make you feel better.

 

[cytg111]

If you even bothered to look you'd find examples on ATPN ranging from random wishes in unrelated threads to punch Nazis (including by those who have posted in this thread like the one below) to entire threads about the subject with dozens of ATPN posters chiming in their support for it.

Was that a friend of yours? The only thing I see in that thread is the suggestion that maybe one should defend oneself from violent Nazis.. shame on you for pretending otherwise.

 

[pcgeek11]

Get some brains.

No, That isn't what it said.

 

[SP33Demon]

What Maxine Waters did yesterday strategically was fine. Tactically should have been more precise.

Change you are not welcome here to

your racism is not welcome here
your cutting taxes for the rich is not welcome here
your serial lying is not welcome here
your voter suppression is not welcome here
your assault on the environment is not welcome here
your corruption is not welcome here
your attack on democratic ideals is not welcome here
your______________ is not welcome here.

pause for applause

Ah yes, liberal tolerance at its finest. You're only tolerant if people agree with you, we get it. Keep in mind this is the same thinking of islamists who misinterpret certain passages of the koran and if you disagree with anything "allah" says. You got trolled by Repubs and spoonfed your own Tolerant Cornflakes. All of a sudden, you are claiming to not like Tolerant Cornflakes and that makes you and your party look weak af. What do you really believe? Nobody fucking knows b/c the goalposts keep moving - one day its "we are tolerant of all people and beliefs" and the next it's your cut and paste hatespeech disaster from the above quote. Your party is in disarray, and if the Trumplords don't eat you neoliberals first, the Progressives sure as F will. You are fighting a losing battle with that hatespeech bro. Should've stuck to your original Tolerant Cornflakes, at least it came from a place of love, not hate.

 

[SP33Demon]

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?

Solid post. The left will just continue eating itself as it continues moving the "goalposts of tolerance". At first they're tolerant of all people and beliefs and now they've devolved to banning people who disagree with them from their restaurants. Like I said in the previous post, it makes them look weak af b/c they keep changing their ideals. In fact, even they don't know whether they're socialist progressive or neoliberal which is why 28-yr old bartenders and servers are now beating their party's stalwarts like Crowley. It's almost hilarious to watch. Keep jamming that square into a circle, maybe eventually it'll fit, right?

 

[JSt0rm]

Solid post. The left will just continue eating itself as it continues moving the "goalposts of tolerance". At first they're tolerant of all people and beliefs and now they've devolved to banning people who disagree with them from their restaurants. Like I said in the previous post, it makes them look weak af b/c they keep changing their ideals. In fact, even they don't know whether they're socialist progressive or neoliberal which is why 28-yr old bartenders and servers are now beating their party's stalwarts like Crowley. It's almost hilarious to watch. Keep jamming that square into a circle, maybe eventually it'll fit, right?

conservatives love being the victim.

 

[Greenman]

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.

I'm not sure what your first sentence means. Do you think I've attended a Trump rally, or even watched one?
Everything else is long hand for "you won't get on my bandwagon". You have an entire herd here to agree with you, you certainly don't need my approval as well. The obverse of that is also true, I don't need your approval, nor do I care about your rejection.

 

[BurnItDwn]

FUCK TRUMP IN THE ASS UNTIL HE GETS BRAIN DAMAGE!

Well, more brain damage.

I hear a hammer smashed face is a more direct path to ensure sufficient damage to the brain.

 

[zinfamous]

I'm not sure what your first sentence means. Do you think I've attended a Trump rally, or even watched one?
Everything else is long hand for "you won't get on my bandwagon". You have an entire herd here to agree with you, you certainly don't need my approval as well. The obverse of that is also true, I don't need your approval, nor do I care about your rejection.

No, not accusing you of attending, but that this is the reality that, anyone who is paying attention, understands. You are assumed to be aware of these facts because it is assumed that you choose to know what is going on, but of course I could be wrong about that.

I'm not telling you to get on any bandwagon: I'm merely pointing out that, after 3 years of seemingly ignoring the endless calls for violence from the fat fucking toad himself and his followers, over and over and over again, you choose to call out liberals for actually deciding to respond in kind, on occasion.

 

[1sikbITCH]

Besides the widespread support including many, many on this forum for the "punch a Nazi" slogan and people who carry it out? Or is that outside the scope of what you define as violence?

As a conservative poster stated in a thread yesterday, this is war and I agree. The violence is coming and if you don't pick a side, it'll be picked for you.

Werner Twertzog‏ @WernerTwertzog

Dear America: You are waking up, as Germany once did, to the awareness that 1/3 of your people would kill another 1/3, while 1/3 watches.

The indifference of good men.

8:41 AM - 23 Aug 2017