I am not aware of MLK being uncivil. I am not aware of him calling those he disagreed with “monsters.” Perhaps you ought to stay on his path. One that involves hard work and leads to victory. Unless of course you simply cannot wait, since your Truth is so pure and urgent.
I don’t remember MLK living to receive equal protection under the law, either.
"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action;” who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.”
Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."
Methinks you do not know MLK as well as you think you do.
Like, the thing about MLK is that we have this sanitized image of him (taught by our schools and very often encouraged by corporate media) that ignores anything that might make white moderates uncomfortable… Even though he really hated white moderates. And, because we fail to adjust for changing attitudes, we act as though people in the 60s also saw him as a clean, soft-spoken moderate. They did not.
MLK, during his time, was seen as divisive, radical, and borderline seditious. As Cornel West put it:
“We now expect the depressing spectacle every January of King’s “fans” giving us the sanitized versions of his life. We now come to the 50th anniversary of his assassination, and we once again are met with sterilized versions of his legacy. A radical man deeply hated and held in contempt is recast as if he was a universally loved moderate.”
I cannot help but think that, given how often MLK is trotted out by reactionaries as a counterpoint to how “radical” people fighting for their lives and their rights are being (just like you’re doing, Paul!), this was intentional.
I am sure you are quite right. Please provide a quote of his name-calling. Thanks.
Same to you Budget Player Cadet.. Please provide a cite to support your claim.
…you’ve shifted the goalposts. You can both be perceived as “uncivil” and not be a “name-caller.”
MLK was perceived as uncivil. Even though he never called anyone a “monster.”
Please forgive me. I did not intend to shift the goalposts, and I am sorry if I did. I am trying to point out that calling people names is unlikely to aid the tough and necessary job of changing minds. It is, however recreational for a certain sort of people. Civil discourse will have better, more lasting, effects than demonizing those we disagree with.
But gosh darn it, if you want to call your fellow men Nazis and monsters, enjoy. Just don’t claim you are following the path to victory paved by MLK. That is being less than honest.
…well here’s the thing: if we had twitter way back in the 1960’s then every person and his dog would be online calling each other “monsters” or “fuck-wits” or something even worse. When you have millions of people a keyboard away from having their voices heard then it is completely unrealistic for you to think that you aren’t going to hear a few people say a few bad words.
And it is also unreasonable for you to think that people who are having their legal rights literally being stripped away from them to not have something to say about it. Hate-movements disguised as “gender-critical feminism” are extremely good at practicing “civil discourse.” But the reality is they are fucking evil and you are playing right into their hands. They want you to be upset with the trans rights movement. They want you to be silent. And when you advocate for silence you are doing the exact thing they want you to do.
Say something about it? Do something about it! Write letters, protest, get arrested, make people choose one side or the other. Educate, explain, work.
Calling people names will not change their minds. Doing that makes people dig in their heels. It is counterproductive. It hurts the cause.
Name-calling and imposing your will on others is not the right course. You must change hearts, not harden them.
Doing fun stuff is unlikely to lead to victory. I would propose following the path to victory that has worked in the past.
…but they are doing this. Haven’t you noticed?
Who exactly are you talking about? Which of the Dem candidates are “calling people names?” Which prominent activists are making people “dig in their heels?” Can you be specific here?
Name-calling can be therapeutic. The Straight Dope has the fucking pit for the very fucking purpose of calling people names. Should we ban the pit?
And how the fuck is the trans rights movement “imposing their will” on anyone? How the fuck does that work? And because I’ve used the word “fuck” a few times does that mean my position is objectively weaker than yours?
LOL. There is nothing fun about publicly fighting for trans rights in a public forum. If you want a sure-fire recipe to get abused, doxxed, harassed then standing up for transgender people is a good way to do it.
I note you have nothing to say about the people who attack trans people, who abuse them, and are stripping them of their rights, and are winning. You say it is unlikely to “lead to victory”: yet Donald Trump is currently President of the United States, you have concentration camps on the borders and Nazis literally marching on the streets. They are “following the path to victory that has worked for them in the past.” And you are letting them get away with it. You are going after the wrong people.
There you go. Name-calling.
Perhaps I was unclear. I was trying to say that name-calling is fun but makes the hard work of changing hearts & minds much harder.
…LOL.
So you don’t support trans-rights because of a sentence written by an anonymous poster on an internet message board?
Do you have any idea what trans-exclusionary-radical-feminists call trans people? Have you not heard the disgusting, sick words they use to demonize trans people? Calling them monsters is being exceptionally polite in comparison to the dehumanizing language that “gender critical feminists” use. I mean for fucks sakes: Monster? Really? I asked for Dem candidates or prominent activists and you give me jayjay?
You aren’t going to change your mind even if we do stop calling people actively dehumanizing transgender people “monsters.”
What is the world has made you claim I do not support trans-rights? What is the basis for your claim that you will not change my mind (if it needed changing) by being civil?
…do you support trans rights?
Yes. Why wouldn’t I?
…so whats your problem then?
Maybe the evident fact that “civility” is more important to you than human dignity and factual truth?
You cannot win over the population without winning over people. You will not win over people by screaming at them and calling them names. Doing those things makes victory harder.
Yes you can, given enough time.
You will have to explain that to me. The population is nothing but a lot of people. Calling people names and shouting rarely changes hearts.