BLM Supports Looters

[Divinity]

Break the social contract, and don't be surprised people stop upholding their end of the contract. For fuck's sake.

[Brian37]

Break the social contract, and don't be surprised people stop upholding their end of the contract.  For fuck's sake.

Yea, blacks forgot their job was to act white.

It cant be that historically even today, they still are getting the short end of the  stick.

How dare you state such sane facts.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

One could argue that, if the system worked as intended, there wouldn’t be riots in the first place.

Oh, wait - Dr. King already argued that.

Boru

[onlinebiker]

Break the social contract, and don't be surprised people stop upholding their end of the contract.  For fuck's sake.

Yea, blacks forgot their job was to act white.

It cant be that historically even today, they still are getting the short end of the  stick.

How dare yoou state such sane facts.

"Act white"?

Exactly what is that?

Do you really think the color of one's skin dictates behavior?

If so - you are a racist.

If not - what "sane facts" are you defending?

My guess - you consider your opinions - that you formed in the vacuum of your basement dwelling existance writing bad poetry and yapping all day on various internet forums - to be "sane facts".

[Rev. Rye]

So, looking at the opinion that MLK must disapprove of looting, two thoughts immediately came to my head: 1) it's become shockingly common to whitewash MLK's views to make it look like he would support whatever sort of status quo the speaker in question would like to prop up, and 2) What would he actually say about looting? Fortunately for this issue, not only do we have a pretty big wellspring of information called The Internet where we can look up the thoughts of a man so prominent America named a public holiday after him, but looking at the events of the day, it's becoming more obvious that the most salient differences between the conditions he fought and the conditions BLM is fighting now are that it's easier to film racist brutality and distribute it, and that there's at least supposed to be some mainstream consensus that this sort of thing is bad.

Fortunately, it looks like the Brians have hit the nail on the head by showing two separate videos of King explaining that "A riot is the language of the unheard." How does someone as famously opposed to violence as MLK manage to speak in such sympathetic terms about tactics so diametrically opposed to his? Simple: as much as he abhors violence, he knows good and goddam well about the sort of conditions that made it happen in the first place, and frankly, this enrages him even more. And while we don't have different drinking fountains for black and white people anymore, the social stratifications that have kept black people lower on the social totem pole still remain, except now the powers that be are just bigger hypocrites about it.

[Brian37]

So, looking at the opinion that MLK must disapprove of looting, two thoughts immediately came to my head: 1) it's become shockingly common to whitewash MLK's views to make it look like he would support whatever sort of status quo the speaker in question would like to prop up, and 2) What would he actually say about looting? Fortunately for this issue, not only do we have a pretty big wellspring of information called The Internet where we can look up the thoughts of a man so prominent America named a public holiday after him, but looking at the events of the day, it's becoming more obvious that the most salient differences between the conditions he fought and the conditions BLM is fighting now are that it's easier to film racist brutality and distribute it, and that there's at least supposed to be some mainstream consensus that this sort of thing is bad.

Fortunately, it looks like the Brians have hit the nail on the head by showing two separate videos of King explaining that "A riot is the language of the unheard." How does someone as famously opposed to violence as MLK manage to speak in such sympathetic terms about tactics so diametrically opposed to his? Simple: as much as he abhors violence, he knows good and goddam well about the sort of conditions that made it happen in the first place, and frankly, this enrages him even more. And while we don't have different drinking fountains for black and white people anymore, the social stratifications that have kept black people lower on the social totem pole still remain, except now the powers that be are just bigger hypocrites about it.

One word that even some on the left don't get is "nuance".

Humans increasingly in our instant gratification media get stuck in bullshit "either/or" propositions.

The truth is , with both MLK and Malcolm, is that they were BOTH right in confronting abuse even if they didn't agree on tactics. And the truth still remains that for as much progress that has been made, unfortunately we are still stuck in the same social pecking order mentality both of them were fighting against.

It still remains today, that it isn't up to black people to not riot, or loot. They also don't want that either. It is up to white people to understand why it even gets to that point. If anyone today is still equating peaceful protest to violence, they are missing the point.

Marie Antoinette looked down on people too, and that didn't turn out so well for her.

---

One could argue that, if the system worked as intended, there wouldn’t be riots in the first place.

Oh, wait - Dr. King already argued that.

Boru

To quote Axel Foley in Beverly Hills Cop, when he convinced Rosewood to take him to the art gallery wearhouse, when Rosewood was given strict orders to drop him off at the city limits, "I just fell in love with you.".

My way of saying. BINGO!

That is EXACTLY what MLK was saying.  And for any idiot to argue that either he or even Malcolm were advocating violence is absurd. It really is as simple as knowing if you kick someone in the nuts long enough, they are going to react.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

So, looking at the opinion that MLK must disapprove of looting, two thoughts immediately came to my head: 1) it's become shockingly common to whitewash MLK's views to make it look like he would support whatever sort of status quo the speaker in question would like to prop up, and 2) What would he actually say about looting? Fortunately for this issue, not only do we have a pretty big wellspring of information called The Internet where we can look up the thoughts of a man so prominent America named a public holiday after him, but looking at the events of the day, it's becoming more obvious that the most salient differences between the conditions he fought and the conditions BLM is fighting now are that it's easier to film racist brutality and distribute it, and that there's at least supposed to be some mainstream consensus that this sort of thing is bad.

Fortunately, it looks like the Brians have hit the nail on the head by showing two separate videos of King explaining that "A riot is the language of the unheard." How does someone as famously opposed to violence as MLK manage to speak in such sympathetic terms about tactics so diametrically opposed to his? Simple: as much as he abhors violence, he knows good and goddam well about the sort of conditions that made it happen in the first place, and frankly, this enrages him even more. And while we don't have different drinking fountains for black and white people anymore, the social stratifications that have kept black people lower on the social totem pole still remain, except now the powers that be are just bigger hypocrites about it.

One word that even some on the left don't get is "nuance".

Humans increasingly in our instant gratification media get stuck in bullshit "either/or" propositions.

The truth is , with both MLK and Malcolm, is that they were BOTH right in confronting abuse even if they didn't agree on tactics. And the truth still remains that for as much progress that has been made, unfortunately we are still stuck in the same social pecking order mentality both of them were fighting against.

It still remains today, that it isn't up to black people to not riot, or loot. They also don't want that either. It is up to white people to understand why it even gets to that point. If anyone today is still equating peaceful protest to violence, they are missing the point.

Marie Antoinette looked down on people too, and that didn't turn out so well for her.

---

One could argue that, if the system worked as intended, there wouldn’t be riots in the first place.

Oh, wait - Dr. King already argued that.

Boru

To quote Axel Foley in Beverly Hills Cop, when he convinced Rosewood to take him to the art gallery wearhouse, when Rosewood was given strict orders to drop him off at the city limits, "I just fell in love with you.".

My way of saying. BINGO!

That is EXACTLY what MLK was saying.  And for any idiot to argue that either he or even Malcolm were advocating violence is absurd. It really is as simple as knowing if you kick someone in the nuts long enough, they are going to react.

Well, there was a point in Malcolm X’s career when he DID advocate violence, and in no uncertain terms. He later softened that stance, though.

Boru

[Brian37]

One word that even some on the left don't get is "nuance".

Humans increasingly in our instant gratification media get stuck in bullshit "either/or" propositions.

The truth is , with both MLK and Malcolm, is that they were BOTH right in confronting abuse even if they didn't agree on tactics. And the truth still remains that for as much progress that has been made, unfortunately we are still stuck in the same social pecking order mentality both of them were fighting against.

It still remains today, that it isn't up to black people to not riot, or loot. They also don't want that either. It is up to white people to understand why it even gets to that point. If anyone today is still equating peaceful protest to violence, they are missing the point.

Marie Antoinette looked down on people too, and that didn't turn out so well for her.

---

To quote Axel Foley in Beverly Hills Cop, when he convinced Rosewood to take him to the art gallery wearhouse, when Rosewood was given strict orders to drop him off at the city limits, "I just fell in love with you.".

My way of saying. BINGO!

That is EXACTLY what MLK was saying.  And for any idiot to argue that either he or even Malcolm were advocating violence is absurd. It really is as simple as knowing if you kick someone in the nuts long enough, they are going to react.

Well, there was a point in Malcolm X’s career when he DID advocate violence, and in no uncertain terms. He later softened that stance, though.

Boru

I get that. But again, it is still a reaction to getting kicked in the nuts.

"By any means necessary". He was certainly a separatist early on. But late in his life he did come to the conclusion that we were all in this together. I agree. Late in his life he did understand the futility of us/vs them. But one cannot really blame him for even his early advocacy. Whites were fucking dicks no matter if blacks turned the other cheek or fought back.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Well, there was a point in Malcolm X’s career when he DID advocate violence, and in no uncertain terms. He later softened that stance, though.

Boru

I get that. But again, it is still a reaction to getting kicked in the nuts.

"By any means necessary". He was certainly a separatist early on. But late in his life he did come come to the conclusion that we were all in this together. I agree. Late in his life he did understand the futility of us/vs them. But one cannot really blame him for even his early advocacy. Whites were fucking dicks no matter if blacks turned the other cheek or fought back.

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

[Brian37]

I get that. But again, it is still a reaction to getting kicked in the nuts.

"By any means necessary". He was certainly a separatist early on. But late in his life he did come come to the conclusion that we were all in this together. I agree. Late in his life he did understand the futility of us/vs them. But one cannot really blame him for even his early advocacy. Whites were fucking dicks no matter if blacks turned the other cheek or fought back.

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.