Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kpete

(71,996 posts)
Tue Jan 20, 2015, 12:54 PM Jan 2015

RUDE 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 don’t 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

38 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RUDE PUNDIT: You can't support Martin Luther King without a willingness to fuck some shit up. (Original Post) kpete Jan 2015 OP
Absolutely. And if laws are oppressing, then we may have to break some laws. rhett o rick Jan 2015 #1
I knew it wouldn't be long before ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2015 #6
I agree with the OP and think it applies in more than one area. nm rhett o rick Jan 2015 #24
I know ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2015 #25
Yeah, how often do you hear "no laws were broken" to defend all kinds of fucked up stuff whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #8
Dr. King was no shrinking violet n2doc Jan 2015 #2
Why is Dr King an ice cream cone? Seems like a little rude portrayal. 7962 Jan 2015 #5
Because that is how he is portrayed now- very non-threatening n2doc Jan 2015 #10
So ice cream is non threatening. Ok, I get it. But my ex wife would disagree. 7962 Jan 2015 #13
"Vanilla" is non-threatening. And they are presenting him as a vanilla ice cream cone. n/t ieoeja Jan 2015 #14
Why is he portrayed with a woman's hands and feet? Orrex Jan 2015 #17
See, thats what I was wondering; looking like hes dancing. But I guess to some, its funny! 7962 Jan 2015 #19
It's weird from start to finish. Orrex Jan 2015 #21
Well I'll be damned. We've got some crack investigators on DU!! NEVER seen one before. 7962 Jan 2015 #23
Yes, "vanilla" is used often to describe something bland or average. So, non-threatening works. 7962 Jan 2015 #20
Vanilla is blander than other flavors and is also accepted by (the favorite flavor) merrily Jan 2015 #26
His message - coopted, his image - sweet ice cream for the masses n/t whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #11
Off the charts awesome! n/t whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #9
Lol listened to a Rethug yesterday telling me MLK wouldn't have support Treyvon Martin Johonny Jan 2015 #3
I'm sure MLK would give Obama a tongue-lashing Demeter Jan 2015 #7
I'm going with that assumption... MrMickeysMom Jan 2015 #12
Intriguing Saucepan of Kerbango Jan 2015 #16
Got a link on that advisor thing re Al Sharpton? Kingofalldems Jan 2015 #27
Still waiting for that link about Mr. Sharpton. Kingofalldems Jan 2015 #28
Nope Saucepan of Kerbango Jan 2015 #29
So you just effing made it up. Kingofalldems Jan 2015 #30
Nope Saucepan of Kerbango Jan 2015 #31
Well I base my opinions on facts. Kingofalldems Jan 2015 #32
This is tedious Saucepan of Kerbango Jan 2015 #33
An advisor is someone on the payroll. Kingofalldems Jan 2015 #34
Bullshit Saucepan of Kerbango Jan 2015 #35
Please yourself. Kingofalldems Jan 2015 #37
Because Saucepan of Kerbango Jan 2015 #38
Sorry, Rude, but you CAN say ANYTHING. staggerleem Jan 2015 #15
Obviously anyone can *say* that crap. Orrex Jan 2015 #18
A fox affiliate was involved in that case, not foxnews. And lying was never the ruling. 7962 Jan 2015 #22
+1000 heaven05 Jan 2015 #4
Recommend.n/t Jefferson23 Jan 2015 #36
 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
1. Absolutely. And if laws are oppressing, then we may have to break some laws.
Tue Jan 20, 2015, 01:33 PM
Jan 2015

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)
6. I knew it wouldn't be long before ...
Tue Jan 20, 2015, 03:09 PM
Jan 2015

"Operation Message Co-opt" was activated ... though I was hoping it wouldn't have been the 1st response.

whatchamacallit

(15,558 posts)
8. Yeah, how often do you hear "no laws were broken" to defend all kinds of fucked up stuff
Tue Jan 20, 2015, 03:16 PM
Jan 2015

Even here the authoritarian mindset pervades.

 

7962

(11,841 posts)
5. Why is Dr King an ice cream cone? Seems like a little rude portrayal.
Tue Jan 20, 2015, 03:06 PM
Jan 2015

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)
10. Because that is how he is portrayed now- very non-threatening
Tue Jan 20, 2015, 03:18 PM
Jan 2015

If you bother to read the text it provides all the context you need for the image.

 

7962

(11,841 posts)
19. See, thats what I was wondering; looking like hes dancing. But I guess to some, its funny!
Tue Jan 20, 2015, 04:18 PM
Jan 2015
 

7962

(11,841 posts)
20. Yes, "vanilla" is used often to describe something bland or average. So, non-threatening works.
Tue Jan 20, 2015, 04:20 PM
Jan 2015

just doesnt seem right. if he was alive, maybe I'd think differently.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
26. Vanilla is blander than other flavors and is also accepted by (the favorite flavor)
Tue Jan 20, 2015, 05:12 PM
Jan 2015

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!

Johonny

(20,851 posts)
3. Lol listened to a Rethug yesterday telling me MLK wouldn't have support Treyvon Martin
Tue Jan 20, 2015, 02:11 PM
Jan 2015

and would hate what Al Sharpton is doing. Republicans hear the words and forget the rest.

 

Demeter

(85,373 posts)
7. I'm sure MLK would give Obama a tongue-lashing
Tue Jan 20, 2015, 03:14 PM
Jan 2015

First, in private, and then when ignored, publicly.

 
16. Intriguing
Tue Jan 20, 2015, 03:39 PM
Jan 2015

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.

 
29. Nope
Wed Jan 21, 2015, 10:35 AM
Jan 2015

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)
37. Please yourself.
Wed Jan 21, 2015, 11:37 AM
Jan 2015

In a thread about MLK you just HAD to bring up Al Sharpton. Who do you think you are kidding?

 
38. Because
Wed Jan 21, 2015, 11:40 AM
Jan 2015

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)
15. Sorry, Rude, but you CAN say ANYTHING.
Tue Jan 20, 2015, 03:38 PM
Jan 2015

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)
18. Obviously anyone can *say* that crap.
Tue Jan 20, 2015, 03:47 PM
Jan 2015

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)
22. A fox affiliate was involved in that case, not foxnews. And lying was never the ruling.
Tue Jan 20, 2015, 04:31 PM
Jan 2015

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.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»RUDE PUNDIT: You can't su...