The Problem With The Left-Wing (polically)

[Acsenray]

@Zeke_N.Destroi

This is precisely what I’m talking about.

I say that I’m a huge fan of equal rights for all but I, personally, don’t like the in-your-face-ostentation of the parades. And look at the vitriol.

What makes it your business to judge the “ostentation” of parades? Throw your own non-ostentatious parade of you want. Otherwise just stay home.

What do you expect from people when you burden them with your unsolicited opinion on ostentation? Why should they care? Why should they subject themselves to listening to it? Most importantly, why do you want people to know what your opinion is on ostentation?

[Miller]

@Stringbean

The best example of what is being described in the OP is when liberals begin to consume their own historical icons for not being “pure enough.”

Example: MLK was not exactly “pro-LGBT,” so let’s tear him down for not adopting 21st century views of gay marriage.

It’s ludicrous and serves no purpose: just lefties getting their rocks off proving they’re more “pure” than everyone else. Snooze.

It’s ludicrous and serves no purpose, true. Luckily, it’s also not a thing that ever actually happens.

Seriously, who are the liberals who are attacking MLK for not being sufficiently pro-gay? I’ve never heard anyone do that. I tried Googling “MLK homophobe,” and the results fell into two basic categories:

1. References to this response to a gay teen who wrote in to his advice column in Ebony magazine*, which would be a bit :dubious: from a contemporary writer, but is a pretty moderate stance for someone in 1958.

2. Right wingers calling King a homophobe, as a defense of the concept of homophobia.

Pretty much no one on the left thinks that King’s stance on gay rights was particularly shameful. Most writers, rather, focus on the words of his widow, who said he would have come around to support gay rights if he’d lived long enough, or on his relationship with Bayard Rustin, an openly gay man and one of King’s closest advisors.

[BrainGlutton]

@Miller

. . . or on his relationship with Bayard Rustin, an openly gay man and one of King’s closest advisors.

Rustin was a Socialist, BTW – that is, not just a socialist but a Socialist, a member of the Socialist Party of America. Which was consistently anti-Soviet at all times after the Communists split off from it in 1917.* But, to some RWs, associating with Rustin would still be one of the things that make King a Commie.

• In fact, its anti-Sovietism was at least indirectly why the SPA no longer exists in its original formation. It split up in the early '70s over whether to support or oppose the Vietnam War – all the rest of the left was solidly against the war, but, dammit, it was a Cold War project, the Soviet Bloc was on the other side of it, and the Commies, the fucking splitters, whom Socialists hated like Baptists (used to) hate Catholics, were on the other side. Well. There are now three successor organizations – the Social Democrats, USA (grew out of the pro-war faction; now practically defunct), the Socialist Party, USA (an actual party that sometimes puts candidates on ballots but has never won anything AFAIK), and the Democratic Socialists of America (not a political party, more of a political club).

For some reason Bernie Sanders, the most prominent self-labeled socialist in American politics, has never belonged to any of these, or even to the social-democratic Vermont Progressive Party. I guess he’s just not a joiner.

[BrainGlutton]

@Sitnam

Said who?

See post #53.

[Sitnam]

@BrainGlutton

See post #53.

I understand misquotes and revised history is his thing, but I was wondering if watchwolf49 cared to provide an author for the pity quote he imagines was said by someone clever.

Guess not.