Sure, reasonable people can disagree with many statements, including other people’s statements about how they choose to define “ally”. Reasonable people can also disagree about, for example, how much sense it makes to refer to LBJ as an “ally” rather than as, say, a “self-serving supporter” of the Civil Rights movement.
Dr. King was not saying if you consume some product you are not an ally.
I think he was decrying those who do nothing but may say they agree with him while having dinner and do nothing else.
I know Borgman did political cartoons for a Cincinatti paper… won a pulitzer I think. But what makes him unpalatable for his Zits cartooning?
That’s quite specific, but undeniably literally true. If it’s super important to you to define the concept of “allyship” in a way that includes the condition “may purchase entertainment media whose sales support pro-bigotry activism against this cause, without thereby ceasing to be considered an ally of this cause”, then you have the comfort of knowing that Dr. King nowhere explicitly disagreed with your definition. (Largely because, as YWTF pointed out, Dr. King didn’t use the terms “ally” and “allyship” in their modern-activism sense anyway, but, details.)
But when it comes to the more general principle of criticizing self-proclaimed supporters of one’s own cause, on the grounds that they’re prioritizing their own preference for a comfortable status quo over their moral duty to stand up for the rights of the oppressed, I suspect puzzlegal and thorny_locust are correct that King’s and Sterling’s views on that principle are probably more similar than you would like to consider them.
I am curious if you think there was some other non-specific answer that would be more acceptable to you?
I think in the context of the question that was a perfectly acceptable and reasonable answer and being “specific” is a feature, not a drawback.
Sure, from the viewpoint of your sweeping assertion back in post #372 that Sterling’s criticisms and the Dr. King criticisms that puzzlegal compared them to are “just not the same thing at all”.
But as I remarked to YWTF in post #444, “ISTM that that’s nitpicking a superficial difference disguising a more fundamental similarity.” I can definitely see why you feel that clinging to the “specificness” of that nitpicking is necessary to support your position.
It was not a “sweeping assertion” and it’s not a superficial difference at all. It is not nitpicking. I am not sure why you think it is. I think you are missing the forest because of the trees here.
I don’t think we’re ever going to get an answer to this. Borgman apparently does the drawing and Jerry Scott does the dialogue, but I can’t find anything particularly damning about either of them with a slightly more than cursory search.
Well, that phrase still seems to me like a very reasonable description of a one-line post responding to a reasoned argument in favor of recognizing similarities between two positions with the unsupported flat contradiction “That is just not the same thing at all.” YMMV.
Well, I have already explained at considerable length, mostly in my posts #430, #436, #444, #448, and #454, why I agree with puzzlegal and thorny_locust that Sterling’s criticisms of self-proclaimed trans “allies” (complaining that it’s not fair to expect them to refrain from buying the Hogwarts video game for the sake of solidarity with trans people) have some fundamental similarities to Dr. King’s criticisms of self-proclaimed white moderate “supporters” of Black civil rights (complaining that it’s not fair to expect them to endorse nonviolent protest for the sake of solidarity with Black people).
Of course there are also very substantial differences between the two situations, and I don’t think either puzzlegal, thorny_locust, or I ever denied that there were. And if you consider it just a bridge too far to attempt to compare any aspect of King’s situation with a disagreement involving video game purchases, then fine, we can disagree about that.
But nonetheless ISTM that their fundamental similarities include the recognition that a lot of self-professed “allies” have a frustrating tendency to expect oppressed people to provide them with reassurance and praise, despite their being more “lukewarm” for the cause. And if they don’t get that reassurance and praise when they ask for it, they tend to whine that the oppressed are being too “extreme” and “alienating” people whose (partial) support they ought to be appreciating more.
Both King and Sterling, IMHO, are very clearly calling out that self-regarding attitude with the announcement “You’re actually not being as big a help here as you like to think you’re being.”
Again, I get it that you feel that the differences between the situations surrounding King’s civil disobedience and the current Hogwarts video game controversy are too different to allow for any meaningful similarities between them. I have now explained about half a dozen times my disagreement with that view, and if you’re not persuaded by it, that’s totally okay, but I will not bother to explain it again.
What reasoned argument? It was a counter-quote to what I quoted from Dr. King.
I think the differences were obvious. More posts insisted I point out the differences and I did. You called that “nitpicking” (which it was not).
Pretty sure I was the one who started that comparison in this thread.
…you might think the differences are obvious. But Kimstu has made a very solid and convincing case for their position while you simply…haven’t.
@Kimstu has done no such thing.
Kimstu was very specific about their posts but completely ignored what came before.
To which @puzzlegal replied:
I have answered that. It was not nitpicking. Not at all. And yes, I believe most people on this message board can see the obvious distinctions between the two writings of Dr. King and what he was on about.
…I’m pretty sure I’m the best judge of what I personally consider is convincing and what I consider is not convincing.
Argumentum ad populum. I remain unconvinced by your argument.
Me too.
…I’m pretty sure I’m the best judge of what I personally consider is convincing and what I consider is not convincing.
Even if it is was true that they were both communicating this point, it doesn’t mean the issues they were flagging out are comparable. This is what you refuse to accept.
It shouldn’t be glossed over that King wrote his criticism of “moderate whites” while he was jailed for a nonviolent protest. That protest was criticized by white clergymen who published a statement in the news right after King’s arrest.
From here:
Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote his “Letter from Birmingham Jail” in response to criticism of the nonviolent protests in Birmingham, Alabama in April 1963. In the letter, King responds specifically to a statement published in a local newspaper by eight white clergymen, calling the protests “unwise and untimely” and condemning to the “outsiders” who were leading them.
He begins his letter by calling the clergymen people of “genuine goodwill” and acknowledging the sincerity of their concern, setting a tone of reasonable dialogue. He then responds to the claims that he is an outsider by informing his critics that as the leader of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, he was invited to Birmingham to support the African American residents fight for their civil rights.
MLK was critical of the white people criticizing him in the media (and from their pulpits). He was pointing out to them that their arrogance and luxury beliefs posed a bigger block to black liberation than even KKK extremism. Using their platforms to stigmatize and marginalize the protestors was the moderate white’s way of perpetuating racist oppression and that is what MLK was calling out.
This bears no similarity at all to the rants of someone angry about members of the gaming community abstaining from a boycott. Buying a game to play in the quiet of your own home is an invisible action; a stranger wouldn’t even know you did it unless you told them. In contrast, MLK was being condemned in the press by racist know-it-alls and was inspired to respond to that with his own critique. Two different scenarios here.
This is the second time this week I’ve seen this letter taken out of context and misinterpreted to score debating points.
So, clearly, neither of you had said anything persuasive to the the other one.
So let me try again.
I was replying to @whack-a-mole’s claim that King didn’t “draw lines” as to who was on his side. He absolutely did, and he called out people who claimed to be on his side, but weren’t helping.
Now, would King have bothered to criticize white people who bought an entertaining novel from a popular author who was also well know to be an ardent racist, working to roll back civil rights legislation? Probably not. Would he have reassured them, “sure, go ahead and read that, it’s fine”? That appears to be the analogy here. I honestly have no idea. I doubt it. After all, King was a civil rights leader and a minister, he wasn’t a book critic. Why even venture into that territory. He had bigger fish to fry.
Sperling is a video game critic, right? They have a rather narrower audience and a rather stronger reason to opine on a video game than King had to opine popular media.
But is Clapton currently making public racist statements? If not, he’s not comparable to Rowling. A better analogy is Scott Adams, who is currently using his position as a creator of popular media to argue that White people should not ever help a Black person and should just try to get away.
This is the first time (that i know of) that Adams has publicly made a anti-Black tirade. Rowling has been making anti-trans tirades for years. So, imagine Adams has been singing this song for a few years, and is also actively supporting actions to get Blacks away from White folk. Then a Dilbert video game comes out. Would you expect a Black video game critic to say, “eh, it’s just a game, buy it and don’t worry about me.”?
We have a thread about Adams, by the way.
That’s not the analogy. Let me play back the questions posed in the OP:
So, should we consider an artist’s background before we do something that might give them our money? More, should we disdain those who do consume that art if we dislike the artist?
MLK’s letter offers nothing that is relevant to these questions, because King’s critique was instigated by tsk-tsking clergymen. Participation in a boycott that arguably is more symbolic than strategic is not on the same plane as the circumstances that put MLK in jail.
The more stretching that is done to make MLK’s words apply to the current HL imbroglio, the more it seems like there’s no strong defense for castigating people as non-allies for playing this game.
Do you agree that Scott Adams is to Black people like Rowling is to trans people?
Because i doubt sterling told @Whack-a-Mole to carefully investigate every piece of media he purchased. I think he was just talking about stuff from Rowling’s opus.
Sorry, i take that back. It’s unfair to ask you to opine on an area the mods have told you to avoid. So I’m asking @Whack-a-Mole , and others.