General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRUDE PUNDIT: You can't support Martin Luther King without a willingness to fuck some shit up.
1/19/2015
Martin Luther King, Jr. Would Still Fuck Your Shit Up (2015 Edition)
..........................
Martin Luther King's attitude was that nothing will progress if you wait for the fearful, prejudiced, oppressive people to decide it's ok. You could interpolate this onto the same-sex marriage debate, if you like, where conservatives (and even some liberals) wanted a gradual approach achieved through legislation. Fuck that. If you want to be treated fairly, you don't ask nicely twice. Once the barriers fall, people will get on board.
In response to the tension integration was causing in schools in Little Rock, Arkanas, King said, "I cannot conceive of a period of social transition without some tension. This is inevitable. Whenever you are moving from an old order to a new order, in the transition period, there is some tension. We seek to lessen the tension as much as possible but we dont seek to due process in order to avoid tension. We have a choice in America to move toward the goal of justice in spite of the tension it will create or stop the process in an attempt to avoid tension while in reality we are tearing away the very core of our nation. This is the choice. The one we should choose? Allow the inevitable tension to arise. There can be no birth or growth without birth and growing pains. Whenever you confront the new, there is the recalcitrant of the old."
You can't say Martin Luther King is on your side and then attempt to turn back the clock on voting rights, on affirmative action, on racial progress, on economic justice. You can't say it and then believe that everyone should be patient while your side evolves enough to accept change. You can't support Martin Luther King without a willingness to fuck some shit up.
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2015/01/martin-luther-king-jr-would-still-fuck.html
- See more at: http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/#sthash.DEB2fkw6.dpuf
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Some here live in a state of denial. They don't like it when anyone speaks out to authority. They would not have liked MLK Jr. Their rational for disparaging whistle-blowers as an example, is that they break laws. To fight oppression, YOU MUST BREAK LAWS.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"Operation Message Co-opt" was activated ... though I was hoping it wouldn't have been the 1st response.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)it is your frequent, and sole, contribution to (most) threads discussing race.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Even here the authoritarian mindset pervades.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)And he DID preach non violence. Certainly he broke laws that were unjust, but he never got violent doing it either. And the laws were still changed
n2doc
(47,953 posts)If you bother to read the text it provides all the context you need for the image.
7962
(11,841 posts)ieoeja
(9,748 posts)Orrex
(63,216 posts)That image makes no sense whatsoever.
7962
(11,841 posts)Orrex
(63,216 posts)But a whimsical Halloween costume, at least.
7962
(11,841 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)just doesnt seem right. if he was alive, maybe I'd think differently.
merrily
(45,251 posts)most who like ice cream. So the majority. There'are also vanilla cakes, vanilla cookies, etc
I prefer several other ice cream flavors to Vanilla, but anyone who feels threatened by his or her ice cream can give it to me. I'll fix its wagon!
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Johonny
(20,851 posts)and would hate what Al Sharpton is doing. Republicans hear the words and forget the rest.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)First, in private, and then when ignored, publicly.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)You can bet it would have been in private.
Saucepan of Kerbango
(48 posts)Do you think MLK would have been a more "under the radar" advisor than Sharpton? I'd like to think he'd be less self-aggrandizing.
Kingofalldems
(38,458 posts)Kingofalldems
(38,458 posts)I have seen it on RW sites. Is that where you got it?
Saucepan of Kerbango
(48 posts)I intuited it myself. Al's profile has steadily increased with the White House, in my opinion. That's how opinions work.
Kingofalldems
(38,458 posts)A Fox fact eh?
Saucepan of Kerbango
(48 posts)It's an opinion. You may not like the opinion, but it doesn't make it any less my opinion.
Kingofalldems
(38,458 posts)What facts do you have?
Saucepan of Kerbango
(48 posts)Search Sharpton. I'm sure they discussed sports and whatnot.
Kingofalldems
(38,458 posts)I know exactly where you are coming from.
Saucepan of Kerbango
(48 posts)An advisor provides advice. A consultant gets paid to advise.
Please....
Kingofalldems
(38,458 posts)In a thread about MLK you just HAD to bring up Al Sharpton. Who do you think you are kidding?
Saucepan of Kerbango
(48 posts)I believe in the spirit and intent of Dr. King's pure message, and I believe that Sharpton muddies that. It's not rocket surgery we are talking about here.
staggerleem
(469 posts)We allegedly have Freedom of Speech in this here country, and FOX News went to court to protect the right of the news media to LIE!
So, if you want to, you surely CAN say "Martin Luther King is on your side and then attempt to turn back the clock on voting rights, on affirmative action, on racial progress, on economic justice." You can even say that, "and then believe that everyone should be patient while your side evolves enough to accept change." You'd be lying through your teeth in the first instance, and you'd be an absolute hypocrite in the 2nd ... but there's nothing (other than, say, morality - a commodity in short supply in today's news media) to stop ANYBODY from saying crap like that.
Orrex
(63,216 posts)But the unspoken subtext is "You can't say Martin Luther King is on your side and then attempt to turn back the clock on voting rights without looking like a complete hypocritical asshole."
This doesn't prevent anyone from saying it, but they'll have to reap the consequences of saying it if they lack the integrity to follow it up.
7962
(11,841 posts)This story gets odder as the years go by. It was a local station in Fl, WTVT. The case did not protect the right of news stations to lie, the final judgement pointed out that this particular case involved an editorial dispute and not a deliberate effort to distort news. The station never aired the story that the reporters said was false.
The whole thing was silly and neither side came out looking very good.