(August 11, 2020 at 1:00 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(August 11, 2020 at 12:54 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: If you ‘get it’, then probably shouldn’t refer to people who say Malcolm X advocated violence as ‘idiots’. Since when does being factually correct make someone an idiot?

Boru

I didn't call you an idiot. I was referring to history and a lifetime of people not getting why he did. 

Yes, he advocated violence. I agree. But for the same reason an abused spouse might react to their own abuse.

Blacks are still in a position today of damned if they do defend themselves, and damned if they don't.

THAT was my point.

I wasn't calling you an idiot, I was actually agreeing with your MLK quote. It shouldn't get to violence in the first place if you are addressing conditions.

---

MLK "A riot is the language of the unheard"..... I 100% agree Boru, so when you rightfully say Malcolm advocated violence, YOU ARE CORRECT. But by MLK's own words even he recognized, while it would not be his tactic, he understood the reaction to abuse.

Quote:And for any idiot to argue that either he or even Malcolm were advocating violence is absurd. 

(August 11, 2020 at 2:48 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: I think Brian37 tried to say is that Malcom X’s stance in violence (particularly in his Nation of Islam days) wasn’t quite as extreme as a lot of people have been led to believe:








I think, in this regard, the key difference between MLK and Malcolm X was that, unlike MLK, Malcolm was okay with violence if it was in self-defense.

(August 11, 2020 at 3:13 pm)Lawz Wrote: A crucial difference between the time of MLK and MX is that in their day blacks were discriminated against in legislation/laws. Ergo, even if they did espouse violence to rectify those overt injustices, they may well not have done in the BLM "cause" which is as far as I can tell is built entirely on nebulous "grievances" to say the least. 2c

(August 11, 2020 at 3:36 pm)Lawz Wrote: Did I say that blacks have never been the victims of police brutality? No. So have whites, however, and the plural of anecdote is, of course, not data. As I have pointed out at least twice already in this forum: in the USA today blacks make up around 40% of the prison population (commit around 40% of crime) and account for around 40% of fatalities at the hands of police. BLM 2020 is essentially just hot air, paranoia, white guilt, victim mentality, hand wringing and bluster born of, well, ignorance, frankly....oh yeah, and 12 years a slave etc ad infinitum.

Now a campaign against police brutality WITHOUT the racial element? Count me in.

(August 11, 2020 at 3:50 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: De facto and de jure discrimination are both discrimination, and our laws address them both.  The nebulous grievance of blm is that our government isn't playing by it's own rulebook, and the consequence of that is, too often, a persons death.

(August 11, 2020 at 3:13 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(August 11, 2020 at 2:48 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: I think Brian37 tried to say is that Malcom X’s stance in violence (particularly in his Nation of Islam days) wasn’t quite as extreme as a lot of people have been led to believe:








I think, in this regard, the key difference between MLK and Malcolm X was that, unlike MLK, Malcolm was okay with violence if it was in self-defense.

Pretty much my point.

I think it is has always been a myth that Malcolm wanted violence. I simply think he simply didn't want the abuse.

I think human nature in general is simple, and even for other life too. Most life will do what it does,  react to a swarm. 


Malcolm didn't like violence, but he also saw that no matter what he did, it didn't matter.  Even MLK saw this. 

"Riots are the voices of the unheard" MLK.

Malcolm WAS NOT ok with violence. I am tired of that canard. He was simply in disagreement with MLK as to how to stand up to oppression. 


Both MLK and Malcolm simply hated getting kicked in the nuts.  Malcolm simply had a shorter fuse.