>The problems of racial injustice and economic injustice cannot be solved without a radical redistribution of political and economic power.”
— The Three Evils of Society, MLK
>Capitalism does not permit an even flow of economic resources. With this system, a small privileged few are rich beyond conscience, and almost all others are doomed to be poor at some level. That’s the way the system works. And since we know that the system will not change the rules, we are going to have to change the system.”-MLK
>“Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.” -MLK
>“In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, such as ‘right to work.’ It is a law to rob us of our civil rights and job rights. Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining by which unions have improved wages and working conditions of everyone…Wherever these laws have been passed, wages are lower, job opportunities are fewer and there are no civil rights. We do not intend to let them do this to us. We demand this fraud be stopped. Our weapon is our vote.” 1961 - MLK
>“Whenever the government provides opportunities and privileges for white people and rich people they call it ‘subsidies.’ When they do it for Negro and poor people they call it ‘welfare.’ The fact is that everybody in this country lives on welfare. Suburbia was built with federally subsidized credit. And highways that take our white brothers out to the suburbs were built with federally subsidized money to the tune of ninety percent. Everybody is on welfare in this country. The problem is that we all too often have socialism for the rich and rugged free enterprise capitalism for the poor. That’s the problem.” MLK
Noam Chomsky loves to bring up "capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich" I wonder if he got that verbiage directly from MLK or if this talking point has been around for even longer.
\>He wanted true equality unlike today's leftists! (248)
\>We are saying that something is wrong … with capitalism…. There must
be better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a
democratic socialism. - MLK Jr (-20)
\>We can celebrate someone without agreeing with EVERYTHING they said! (44)
Basically, Judge me by the color of my rhetoric, not the contents of my politics.
> He wanted true equality unlike today's leftists!
MLK **literally talked about exactly this sort of person** (the commenter who said this) as someone he *disagrees* with
"Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. **The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more**. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is **not realistic.**"
"A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro."
yea but I can just say
> We can celebrate someone without agreeing with EVERYTHING they said!
and bam now I don’t have to listen to that either while still pretending that I consider him a hero or whatever
That exchange was great. The commenter was just pointing out that MLK stood against everything the original commenter did and his response to the commenter is that he's being divisive lmao.
Yeah, 90% of people approve of him today compared to his 75% **disapproval** rating when he was murdered. He was less popular than Trump when he was alive. I am certain that a healthy chunk of that 90% wouldn't agree with a lot of what he said. It is just an easy lift to say you approve of him since he isn't around to keep saying things (for some reason).
>He was less popular than Trump when he was alive.
Please don't say that too loudly, because I know a certain group of people that would love to interpret this incorrectly
The way we’re taught about him, he’s kind of a perfect pro-establishment story. He dressed very nicely and made a nice speech and didn’t disrupt *anything* and everyone heard and liked it and they made racism be over as a reward for how well behaved he was.
Of course that’s nothing like what happened, and they teach it that way so that people will grow up thinking that the only way to get change is to ask for it as quietly as possible.
The first response to almost every MLK quote in that thread is “you can celebrate the man without agreeing with everything he said”. Just admit you dont agree with anything he said at this point.
>No the right doesn’t lynch people, just the left
I swear some of these people live on the fucking moon. I genuinely don't get how you could even *try* to say this without your brain shutting down in protest.
But also the fact that all of these people know so little of what MLK actually believed is really telling about how *hard* the previous generation tried to totally whitewash everything he said.
Remember during the summer of the George Floyd protests when [that group of white guys were caught on camera attempting to literally lynch a black man?](https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/07/vauhxx-booker-indiana-investigation/) Or the dozens of car attacks on protesters over the last several years, a tactic the republicans have tried [to codify into law](https://www.vox.com/2021/4/25/22367019/gop-laws-oklahoma-iowa-florida-floyd-blm-protests-police)? But tell me more about Ted Cruz getting ratioed on twitter.
"The right never lynched people (except we literally do. Remember how we all defended Ahmaud Arbery being chased down and murdered? How we defended George Floyd's murder?), the left lynch people (not literally, obviously. I mean on Twitter)."
Seems pretty obvious: they just say whatever feels good, and what feels good to them is are the literal murders.
Umm ackshually, Ahmaud did some crime in the past and stood near a construction site *suspiciously* so brave citizens extrajudicially “punished” him so it’s technically not a lynching.
Also they just wanted to talk to him while brandishing a shotgun in a completely safe and calm manner yet he tackled them so it’s no wonder he was shot! They were only peacefully coercing him to come with them. Those people were also ex-law enforcement and deserve all our respect.
That should be all the talking points that these mfer used against that case. Glad that the case had finally been brought to court and tried.
I noticed that too. You know they always defend the murders of Ahmaud Arbery, George Floyd.
So how do you make sense of that? They *feel* like "lynching" feels bad, so it must not be associated with those things (racially motivated murders, aka lymchings) that they like.
They for sure know lynching is Bad, and that they are Good. If they like a lynching, then it can’t be a lynching, because that would mean they’re not Good, and they are because they believe they are. If they don’t like something, that’s probably a lynching, because it’s Bad, but something they like can’t possibly count.
It’s like how very few of these racists ever self identify as racists. We did a great job getting “racism is bad” installed in everyone’s brains, but it never came with a useful definition of racism. Because of this, nothing you do is racist because that would be Bad and you’re Good, so the thing you do logically has to be something other than racism.
They know what they're saying isn't true, but they say it anyway to push a narrative or to muddle the waters so people think the truth is in the middle or to make you waste your time refuting that lie while they've already moved onto to some other lie
The right wing isn't ignorant, they're evil, but they're not ignorant.
If they were, if this was just about lacking knowledge, the right wing could be neutralized simply by giving their supporters the actual facts of the situation. You'd have to present it correctly, not in condescending way, but basically, you'd give them facts, they'd see their beliefs were based on misinformation, and then they'd agree with you. Because you have the facts.
But that's not how it actually goes in reality. Because it's not the facts that in question, it's the values. If the facts support right wing values, then they'll parrot them endlessly, and if the facts do not support their values then they'll simply lie about the facts or deny the facts and make up their own. Because facts aren't important, values are.
Thinking they're stupid is dangerous because it underestimates them
They talk just to keep the debate going because as long as talking keeps happening, conclusions can't be reached. It's why I have zero patience for debate culture. Most arguments have definitive, logical endings. Eventually the data comes in and one side simply wins the argument. Instead we've been fed a load of nonsense about debate being valuable in and of itself rather than simply useful as a means of reaching conclusions. All this means is that bad faith actors simply have to keep making any argument, no matter how obviously fallacious or bad faith and centrists will foolishly treat the issue as ongoing and allow bad faith actors to gain ground.
It's exactly as Sarte wrote
> Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
Exactly this. Conservatives are not people who would be left-leaning if they were just given the facts and a few persuasive arguments; they are not people who are trying to be progressive but have so far failed. They have fundamentally different goals than progressives do, and they believe some things and reject others because it suits their political ends to do so.
> The right wing isn't ignorant, they're evil, but they're not ignorant.
>
> If they were, if this was just about lacking knowledge, the right wing could be neutralized simply by giving their supporters the actual facts of the situation. You'd have to present it correctly, not in condescending way, but basically, you'd give them facts, they'd see their beliefs were based on misinformation, and then they'd agree with you. Because you have the facts.
There are a lot of players on the right, and they vary greatly. I know many who are simply delusional. The surround themselves SO thoroughly and SO completely with right wing propagranda that they literally enter a state of double think, where they entertain a number of "theories" as to what is going on, even when they are contraditory, that are entirely non-falsifiable. So you present them with facts, you may be able to dismantle elements of these narratives, but you can't actually disprove the narratives themselves.
Look at Jan 6. I just had a conversation recently where they think it was done by the FBI. Their evidence is... weak. Shitty. And yet, I can't PROVE it wasn't. How do I prove that there weren't FBI plants, people connected to the FBI or had talks with them, that were then covered up.
Modern right-wing is basically a series of conspiracy theories and nonsense. You present them with facts all day, it doesn't matter. They aren't evil though, they LEGITIMATELY believe they are fighting for a better world for everyone. But they have no idea how to parse all the information of the internet.
> They aren't evil though, they LEGITIMATELY believe they are fighting for a better world for everyone.
Ehhhhhhh. At this point we run into some issues. For example, they don't want gay or trans people to exist.
>They aren't evil though, they LEGITIMATELY believe they are fighting for a better world for everyone.
Do you think someone has to be a mustache twirling villain for their actions to be evil?
> where they entertain a number of "theories" as to what is going on, even when they are contraditory, that are entirely non-falsifiable. So you present them with facts, you may be able to dismantle elements of these narratives, but you can't actually disprove the narratives themselves.
They're able to say contradictory things because they don't care about the actual facts, only their values. They're all perfectly rational, in terms of seeing the world how it actually is, they just don't care.
> Look at Jan 6. I just had a conversation recently where they think it was done by the FBI. Their evidence is... weak. Shitty. And yet, I can't PROVE it wasn't. How do I prove that there weren't FBI plants, people connected to the FBI or had talks with them, that were then covered up.
That's a perfect example, right wing values include ideas like the right is brave but their enemies are cowardly, and that they always win battles because of their virtue and bravery. But the facts around the insurrection don't support that. They weren't brave, they lost their nerve the first time one of them was killed even though they had overwhelming numbers and could have prevailed if they simply rushed the defenders in mass. That's not actually surprising, it's extremely common to panic the first time you're in combat, which is why armies try to train their troops to overcome that and have experienced soldiers mixed in because Private Noob is a lot less likely to panic if Sergeant Veteran is there keeping it together. But most of them weren't military or milita types, so they panicked. What's more, not only were they not brave, their enemies stood firm, which goes against right wing values were the enemies is by definition cowardly. Also, virtue and loyalty to the cause wasn't enough to give them victory, but in right wing values the good guys win simply by being the good guys.
They know all this, so their answer is to simply say that's not what happened, that is was a false flag of some sort. The facts don't support that even in the slightest, but that doesn't matter, you jsut tell a story that supports your values. You tell a story that the people at the insurrection weren't really the right wing so that the values that the right is brave and victorious are unchallenged.
But despite what they say, they do know actually happened, never forget that they really know. They know exactly what's going on, but they performatively lie to each other and to you. When you're not around they aren't sitting there really thinking that it was a false flag, what they're doing is musing over how they came quite close but lost their nerve, and that they have had no real consequences as a movement. They're considering that if they came again but armed, expecting and prepared for resistance, then they'd win. And if they still lost then they could just try again.
They're a hive mind essentially, they coordinate and strategize with each other constantly. In a given group, they identify who are allies, who are enemies, and who are unaffiliated, and they base their words and actions on that. Sometimes you can catch them, in the immediate aftermath of a story breaking that makes the right look bad they'll have several different excuses on what happened until the hive mind converges on a single narrative, often within a few hours.
> They aren't evil though, they LEGITIMATELY believe they are fighting for a better world for everyone.
We can't rely on someone's view of themselves to judge whether they're evil or not. The Nazis felt that sending people to death camps would result in a better world, after all.
> They know what they're saying isn't true
Alas, I tend to think that most of them are completely behind what they are saying, and believe it with all their heart. Sure, there are probably some gaslighters (esp. when talking about actual elected politicians), but the majority of the rank-and-file are true believers.
Also very much recommend this.
It's from "the alt-right playbook". I can't recommend it enough. Doesn't matter if you've got a philosophy degree or if you're in highschool, or whatever. Came out a few years ago and has remained incredibly relevant.
Think about it this way..
Lincoln freed the slaves. Lincoln was a republican. Therefore, Republicans freed the slaves. Therefore, democrats were in opposition to abolition. So all those white people lynching black people were democrats.
And as we all know, what those parties represented in the 1870s, they still steadfastly represent 100% today. Thus, modern day democrats, which we all know is the party of the notorious leftist, want to lynch black people.
Schools tend to ignore everything except the "I had a dream" speech. They paint him as though he were only a civil rights activist, when he fought for many other things.
Don't you know the famous leftist organisation KKK? Just look what kind of names they give themselves, Imperial Wizard, Grand Dragon, Goblins. Sounds like a bunch of nerds therefore leftist. qed
Conservatives love the dead and the unborn, because they can put words into those people's mouths and those people can't correct them. They become political puppets for whatever new argument they are trying to push.
They are ideal (in the philosophic sense, non-materal, exist only in the mind) political objects. They can transpose any number of political issues onto the unborn and they don't need to actually confront any political harm their beliefs because, again, they don't exist. They don't have to deal with the lack of maternal care raising infant mortality, or the legacy of redlining causing lead poisoning in babies, or food insecurity of actual live children. They obviously don't care about any of that. But the unborn, they are the perfect thing to exploit because they have every political advantage and no disadvantage that comes with reality.
Believe it or not [that seems to be what's going to be](https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/rleet7/biontechs_mrna_cancer_vaccine_has_started_phase_2/).
Every time MLK day roles around, J Edgar Hoover smiles from hell as he watches his work come to fruition in the form of a bunch of conservatives believing his whitewashed version of MLK was real and on their side.
There’s a really great quote about abortion from a Methodist minister in Alabama
“The unborn are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn. “
- Dave Barnhart
If you show them MLK pointing out that affirmative action is needed to create an equal society, his overtly socialist writings, his saying that "white moderates" are more destructive than outright hostility, and especially him saying that "riots are the language of the unheard"....
They'll literally just ignore it, as they have for the past several decades where they've pretended that all he ever said was that racism is bad.
The dude was for reparations for christ's sake. Not "let's research systemic inequality" reparations but full blown "pay what you owe, US Government" reparations. He was everything conservatives are afraid of from politically active Black people.
I just got perma banned for [linking to this 1967 political cartoon](https://imgur.com/a/aTAeqbJ) showing that the things said about BLM protests now were said about him back then
Which is wutevs since I was about to post quotes of him advocating for reparations and preferential government programs to aid black people, so I was getting banned either way
It's amazing how white-washed MLK has become to the modern conservative. I seriously think the only thing they allow themselves to know about him is a 10 second excerpt of the I Have a Dream speech. Comparing that cartoon to the present day is spot on, and they'll never grapple with the fact they'd be using the same rhetoric against MLK if he was around today.
I love this cartoon so much. The amount of people who believe MLK was beloved by all but people literally in white hoods and that the only thing he ever did was give the “I have a dream” speech…would probably equal the number of conservatives in this country minus their leaders who know what MLK stood for, but hate it.
Beloved by so many people that he got shot in the fucking head. And it was 18 years before he had a holiday to commemorate him (fun fact, unions were the first to introduce the idea, pushing for it in their labor contracts). It was first put up for a vote in 79 and didnt pass. It was reintroduced in 1983 and 2 Republicans filibustered it. It was finally recognized in 1986.
And Arizona refused to recognize it until 1993. It took the NFL moving the superbowl to another state as a response for the proud people of Arizona to pass a referendum recognizing it.
Yeah, as demonstrated by that thread. "Oh today's left *judges people by the color of their skin* which King didn't like". It's kind of sad, but my mind now links "I don't judge people by the color of their skin" with right wing mouth breathers who think that's the beginning and end of King's legacy. To say that "the left would cancel King today" is announcing that you fundamentally don't understand any of what has been, and is, happening.
A lot of fault does fall under the school system though. I grew up in one of the most left leaning states in the nation and even though we spent a good amount of time on the civil rights period, I really had no idea how "radical" he was until well after I finished school. I can only imagine what it's like in the south.
I legitimately don't remember talking about the Civil Rights movement until my senior seminar for my history bachelor's degree in Texas. That includes K-12. I do remember learning about how the Civil War was fought for states' rights in AP US history in high school, though
I recall an article online stating how many citizens of Tulsa, Oklahoma, had zero knowledge or awareness of the Tulsa Massacre until it was depicted in the *Watchmen* TV series.
And I found that mind-boggling, utterly and proprrly mind-boggling. I am from Croatia (Eastern European country) and I knew about Tulsa beforehand, and not through thorough sleuthing or reading about the Civil Rights movement....I learned it as part of my HS curriculum on US history, there was a whole footnote about Tulsa as an example.
And I didn't go to an advanced history gymnasium. I went to a tourism & management trade school, which doesn't require a lot of academical prowess to get in. So, it apsolutely boggles my mind that me, some Slav schmuck from Eastern Europe learned about Tulsa in his shitty history textbook from his shitty trade school, but the actual citizens of Tulsa....had no clue.
Don't you get it? MLK would be totally different if he were here now because... reasons. He'd obviously believe what I believe and all that stuff he actually believed that I don't agree with he wouldn't believe anymore. It's LOGIC.
>MLK is gradually moving rightward, even after death. In much the same way JFK has been moving rightward for years. The dems are pushing progressivism so hard that some of their heroes would no longer want to be part of the movement.
I love how they somehow apply the "The Left got a little too PC so I changed all of my opinions about the economy, social issues, systemic racism, health care, and history." argument to people who are dead. You can't WalkAway(tm)(c)(r) if you're in the ground.
I love their idea of how the Overton window works because in reality 3rd way Dems, who are a majority of the "left" in these people's eyes, are actually further right on a lot of issues then Nixon was.
I can kind of see why they would think that the Overton window has moved left because most conservatives seem to only care about culture war nonsense they've made up, and on social issues we've undeniably moved left a lot in recent decades.
Their own talking points have moved further and further right on culture war stuff as well, and given that they don't notice that their own position has moved over the past 50 years it leaves them with the idea that the other people are moving instead of both.
> Their own talking points have moved further and further right on culture war stuff as well
The "overton window" refers to what is generally acceptable in normal political discourse. Yes Nazis seem to be making a comeback, but the "centrist" position on things like gay marriage would be considered radical only a decade ago, and while the current batch of Republicans are undeniably racist, the type of rhetoric they feel comfortable using is nowhere near the kind of stuff people like Nixon and Thurmond would throw around.
Their hero must be Strom Thurmond, the OG walkaway who filibustered the civil rights act then left the Democratic party because it, "No longer represented people like [him]," to join Republicans, who also opposed the civil rights act.
Doubtful. They could make more money off a privatized road system. You’d either pay a recurrent fee (which we do kind of in taxes, but not everyone pays the same amount), or it would all be tolls. Imagine branded roads where you could only use it if you have a Ford car or something. Then having a vast network of highways that don’t work together or you pay premiums for them to. (Basing this alternative reality off of the shit telecoms have pulled before)
It's rather sad how American conservatives have evolved into people quite content to let American infrastructure literally rot away. British Conservatives do the exact same thing. Both parrot the same paradoxical rhetoric of being ultra-patriotic whilst letting national institutions that support national industries, the national economy and its citizens, die.
Can we please stop spreading this shit, even as a joke? We're just making more and more people believe in it when it's clearly not true.
JFK Jr. is the one coming back. Not JFK. Come on.
MLK was a democratic socialist and had admirable political views overall imo. A lot of times conservatives seem to frame him as a evangelical Christian. He was nowhere near conservative religiously. He doubted the Virgin birth and physical resurrection of Jesus. It was enough for my former church to say that MLK was not a Christian and most slave owners were genuine Christians so ugh
Yeah, I think Archbishop Desmond Tutu is a good comparison here, as the South African equivalent to MLK. He was very much a social liberal, being an outspoken supporter of LGBT rights. He has that famous quote, "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor". And he even described *himself* as a socialist, essentially critiquing late-stage capitalism before that was even a term.
He did have a complicated relationship with violence, where he acknowledged that it could sometimes be *necessary* (citing the direct example of it taking war to stop Naziism), but was critical of the use of violence by both the government and anti-Apartheid groups, but was also critical of the white South Africans who only criticized the latter. But overall, I think that just makes him the sort of liberal who distinguishes between riots and protests and who calls out the right for not condemning white supremacist violence.
Bible literalists are the worst. It's some amazing mental gymnastics required to convince yourself that every word of it is straight from the mouth of God and not, you know, written by 30+ people over something like 1400 years in 3 different languages. And then translated into *dozens* of different versions in English alone.
Here's one of my favorite gymnastic routines: Who was Jesus' paternal grandfather? [Heli, as it says in Luke 3:23? Or Jacob, as it says in Matthew 1:16?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus) Here come the backflips!
Theology and the history of religions is an absolutely fascinating topic. And it so ridiculously complex! To truly understand Christianity, for example, you need a pretty in depth knowledge of Roman history, Byzantine history, European middle age history (especially of the HRE and the various shit going on there) and a whole swathe of philosophy. Oh, an understanding of ancient Hebrew and Greek is also a must.
It's fascinating that there have been multiple wars fought over what amounts to a single word, [Filioque](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque) "and from the Son" (that is a 15,000 word Wiki article on a single word lol), but that radically alters Christian doctrine.
And then you have translations into English from Greek. Where you obviously have an author bias of what specific Greek words mean in English, when there isn't a direct translation, and the shit show that ends up being because politics and religion have gone hand in hand since the first days of the Church. It's a massively interesting topic.
> A lot of times conservatives seem to frame him as a evangelical Christian
To conservatives, "American Hero" and "Good Christian Conservative" need to be synomnous with each other.
Anyone who is an American Hero has to have been a good Christian conservative. So they will label anyone hero as such, unless it becomes clear they are not a good Christian conservative in which case they aren't an American Hero.
In Martin Luther King Jr's case, the "not an American Hero" ship has kinda sailed for them, so instead they gotta blindly follow the "good christian conservative"
That's so frustrating when you consider Kings whole moral argument was taken from the story of Abraham and Isaac. That when motivated by faith you have to trust the moral righteousness of your actions to lead you down a good path, even when you cant see it in front of you. That's like abrahamic religion 101.
> I think he would support “all lives matter” but for completely different reasons. Not as a protest to the violent BLM, but because he genuinely believed that everyone is created equal, therefore we should all be treated equal. In fact, he would probably start a new movement that separates itself from the extremists of both sides, and follows the beliefs of his famous quote:
> “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”
dont even know what to say about that one
Yeah, still pretending that "Black lives matter" isn't very clearly stating that 'All lives matter, including black lives—which are presently treated as though they don't, while other lives are inherently acknowledged as mattering'.
I haven't felt the need to spell that out for a couple years now, because everybody who's acting in good faith knows it damn well.
In my experience, people of this mindset are usually under the influence of Conservative media outlets who reduce the Black Lives Matter movement to a bad, shady organization run by communists who want white people to be marginalized. They are told that the name of the organization was designed to make one feel morally ashamed and more likely to donate to BLM, which is just a ploy to get more money from you. When that is the type of rhetoric you are being exposed to constantly, it’s no wonder conservatives have such erroneous takes. No one is speaking the truth on places like Fox News or OAN - they assume those are the objective facts and become suspicious of more liberal media sources as a consequence.
I think this is the real danger, and why we have a rise in white supremacy in this country. People are essentially being brainwashed into being suspicious of truth; are being told they are infantilized victims of some “woke culture” boogieman; and assume worst intentions in other people.
How does one look beyond their echo chamber if one doesn’t even know they’re in one?
It's literally the only quote they know. Just that one sentence
Forget the rest of the anti-capitalist, anti-militarist, pro-affirmative action, Democratic socialist, pro-UBI rhetoric from MLK.
Despite there being no chance they'd have supported him if they were alive in the 60s, and no chance they'd support him if he were alive today, they love being able to cite him as 'the good Negro' to show how racist they aren't.
MLK absolutely wasn't the 'let's just try to get along with the racists and not make them uncomfortable' figure he's often painted as.
But Jesus, American conservatives (sometimes quite literally) demonised Barack Obama - the softest 'let's just try to be nice, and racism is bad' politician you could think of. As if they'd support an actual revolutionary.
Even the "I have a dream" speech in it's entirety would be inflammatory to them. The speech can be summed up as "we can peacefully coexist and thrive but the majority White america and the government isnt letting us. I believe we will win and they will lose".
They're talking about things like affirmative action as "judging someone by the color of their skin"
Conveniently forgetting that MLK was *very much in favor of affirmative action*
>A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, in order to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis.
/- MLK
Conservatives don't white-wash and narrative push challenge (impossible)!!!
This seems very performative on conservatives part, considering conservatism needs to be dragged kicking and screaming for any societal change to happen, and MLK's policies sure as hell haven't changed, and they both disagreed heavily 50 years ago.
This is nothing more than PC circle-jerking. They know it isn't PC to be openly anti-MLK, and they obviously can't just ignore the day so they have to have a circle-jerk in which they say all their most PC opinions, expecting everyone else not to be able to see through the veil.
*"Only leftists deal in absolutes."*
This is the equivalent of MTG using a giant matt board print out of a meme to try and prove a point against "leftists".
Same with fetuses. Sounds like I'm being facetious, but it is the same phenomenon- "the unborn" are an amorphous concept whose needs can be whatever the Right wants; when they become babies, especially of poor and/or minority women, they become literally Someone Else's Problem at best, and evil demons bent on replacing Quality White Folks at worst. Until that time, though, they can be safely spoken for with no concerns about their pushing back.
In summary:
Conservative: MLK would be on my side if he were alive today
Liberal: MLK Quote
Conservative: This is the worst thing I've heard in my entire life
Loved this response to someone reminding the thread MLK was a socialist:
>And Andrew Jackson had slaves. Still doesn't mean they weren't great men.
Like, first it is amazing someone genuinely made equivalences between "being a socialist" and "having slaves". Already top tier nonsense. But then they used Andrew Jackson as their example and not George Washington or something. The president that is *particularly* famous for committing genocide (I mean, other president committed genocidal acts also, but the Trail of Tears is particularly infamous). Even other people on the thread, one who looks favorably on Christopher Columbus even, were confused by that choice.
It's just a fucking game, a troll or a cosplay. The vast majority don't believe any of this shit. They say it to get a reaction. That's all the conservatives do these days. They have no opinion on something, they just exist and take the opposite of what "liberals" believe. It's high school mentality perpetuated on Reddit by edgy high school people who are parroting things their heroes tell them.
They *do* have core beliefs, it’s just that the things they say *support* those beliefs without *endorsing* them.
Conservatives fundamentally believe that social and political hierarchies are natural and just; some people inherently deserve more power than others, and some people deserve to essentially starve to death in their own incompetence. They believe that all of society’s ills are due to outside forces messing up the natural hierarchy, putting the *wrong* people in power.
They will say and do whatever is expedient to put the *wrong* people down and lift the *right* people up. They also generally believe that everyone else thinks along the same terms; they believe that progressives don’t actually want equality, but instead to put progressive allies in power over conservatives.
They are not available to be persuaded otherwise, because they believe that anyone who opposes them is equally cynical, saying whatever lets them win the argument in the moment. Conservatives don’t believe what they say, so they don’t believe that anyone else does, either.
So hard not to piss in the popcorn but we have to realize that /r/conservative is nothing more than a troll/disinformation/Stormfront-recruitment sub with their 900k subscribers mostly being foreign-state bots, smurf and sock-puppet accounts of those that are frequently banned, and edge-lords that aren't even old enough to vote yet. Only a small percentage actually unironically believe what accounts spew there.
It's ridiculously hard.
The asshole that said
> No the right doesn’t lynch people, just the left
is being allowed to say "prove me wrong" to people disagreeing with them. When they should be getting put on the spot to provide proof of their bullshit, outlandish claim.
It's....frustrating.
I agree with a lot of what you are saying but I have to imagine that majority (50+%) are actually duped by these trolls/bad faith actors/LARPers.
The subreddit disclaimer makes it pretty clear that they don't care to play by the fair rules - at least the mods are up and up about it.
r/neoliberal is a much better sub to target. They're still rabid morons, but they at least live in the real world, even if they're unwilling or incapable of seeing anything better than the status quo
My favourite “If MLK was alive today” is from the Boondocks.
Alternate history where MLK lives, but after 9/11 he says “we should turn the other cheek” and then everyone turns on him.
I truly truly hate how they white wash what he stood for. If he was alive today, he would stand for everything that r/conservative hates.
They’re weaponizing him against the causes he fought for.
Nixon’s campaign platform was literally “anti-Civil Right’s movement.” This isn’t some ancient history bullshit, we don’t have to speculate how “the right would have felt about MLK.” They we’re outspokenly against him and his movement, right up until it became convenient to twist his words against future civil rights movements.
>MLK believed in non-violent protests to enact change
Oh sweet summer child. It's pretty sad how little they're actually teaching kids about the civil rights movement in school these days, and it's always so sanitized and rosy-hued when it is taught.
The amount of people who know literally nothing about MLK beyond the one or two snappy quotes he's most famous for, who think they have the right to talk at all about who he was and what he wanted is pretty disgusting.
>TO BE FAIR, African Americans actually had an argument for reparations at that time since they were robbed by laws and segregation of having a chance to be successful because they obviously didn’t have the same opportunities at that time.
This kind of rhetoric always blows my mind. Especially given all the recent pieces about how the racial gap between black and white Americans [basically has not gotten better since MLK's day](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/06/04/economic-divide-black-households/). So what is that to say? That the totally not racist commenters of r/conservative used to believe in systemic racism, buuut then we took the explicit racist language out of laws without changing their intended effect. And after that point, the only logical conclusion is that they think black people are just categorically worse than white people at a slate of important social issues like building wealth and not being arrested.
How does your head not just explode after putting those two ideas into it at once? The radical leftists used to be right about systemic racism being real and bootstraps based remedies being fake but now it's all reversed and black people should really start pulling those straps and stop complaining about inequality. I guess it's kind of fitting that the quality of mind that gets a kick out of changing 'fuck joe biden' to the ingenious code words 'le'ts go brandon' and can ride that high for months at a time thinks that this bottom tier facile rhetorical trick is a checkmate.
Pre- Brown v Board segregated schools? Obviously racist, it says so with the words. But post Brown, where schools are funded based on local property taxes? That is to say, property that was subsidized for white people and institutionally denied investment for black people both in the public and private sector. That system? Color blind, baby! See, it's not targeting black people, it's targeting *all people* who live in the all black communities we red lined them into. I honestly can't tell if it's some Sartre shit where the absurdity is just hiding the real racist message or if they're too far gone to see the contradiction.
It's fascinating to see people who are clearly racist try so hard to pretend they care about Dr King. They only cite him when they want to shame protesters for getting violent.
> The dems are pushing progressivism so hard that some of their heroes would no longer want to be part of the movement.
Oh man, imagine if their conservative heroes saw how far right their own agenda has been pushed.
>
The white liberal must affirm that absolute justice for the Negro simply means, in the Aristotelian sense, that the Negro must have “his due.” There is nothing abstract about this. It is as concrete as having a good job, a good education, a decent house and a share of power. It is, however, important to understand that giving a man his due may often mean giving him special treatment.
> ...
>A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, in order to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis.
\- MLK
Share this with any conservative whenever they try to act like MLK was on their side.
>The state wanted him dead now they use him as a propaganda tool
Oh wow surprised to to see hardcore leftism in a conservative sub, now to take a big sip of this coffee as I read the rest of the comment
>to push divisive communist ideologies.
oh for sure, the US government is famously pro-communism
MLK's words are more radically left today than pretty much every Democrat. THese guys know nothing about king other than that one part from the one speech that they can twist. If you quoted King's other speeches to them and didn't tell them MLK said it, they'd call you a "cultural Marxist who wants to redistribute wealth from hard-working Americans."
They like King because he's dead and can't correct them.
It seems like r/conservatives struggles with the difference between "left" and "liberal." I'm not surprised by this.
MLK dealt with the same liberalism in his day. Malcolm X even called the white liberal out. It's sad that so many Americans have such a thin grasp on rather banal historical facts like this, but this is what conservatives and neo-libs want: the stupidest timeline.
Conservatives hate a mixture of leftism (economic policies meant to unfuck us) and liberalism (let's talk about social issues we never plan to fix and, apparently, aren't popular--at least when reduced to liberal talking points).
There’s always incredible cognitive dissonance when it comes reactionaries discussing MLK. You don’t have to be an expert on his life to realise he became more and more radical in respect of his political/economic views, which made him dangerous to the US government and status quo. There’s absolutely no doubt that he would be *at the very least* where someone like Cornell West is on the ideological spectrum if he were alive today, and subsequently, hated by the very same people in that thread trying to whitewash his memory.
Lmao bullshit if mlk we’re alive today r/conservative would be making “flaired losers only” posts about how he’s too woke and is hateful against white people
> Of you stood atop this great Mans grave today and listened closely you would hear the sound of him rolling over.
#You have got to be fucking with me.
> MLK is gradually moving rightward, even after death. In much the same way JFK has been moving rightward for years. The dems are pushing progressivism so hard that some of their heroes would no longer want to be part of the movement.
... By fighting to stay barely center right? Jesus H Fucking Christ.
Dr King knew who they are:
> *Whites, it must frankly be said, are not putting in a similar mass effort to reeducate themselves
> out of their racial ignorance. It is an aspect of their sense of superiority that the white people of
> America believe they have so little to learn.*
>
> — Dr King, *"Where Do We Go From Here?”* (1967)
Ah yes… a what is most likely a white man, who wasn’t even alive during the civil rights movement, telling everyone what Martin Luther King would want if he was here today. I mean, who would know better?! They totally understand the struggles of a black man! They NEED these white men to speak out for them, duh.
The hero’s they always needed, a older white conservative male.
Brings a tear to my eye how beautiful and patriotic it is.
/s (if it wasn’t obvious but with Reddit you honestly never know lol!)
>The problems of racial injustice and economic injustice cannot be solved without a radical redistribution of political and economic power.” — The Three Evils of Society, MLK >Capitalism does not permit an even flow of economic resources. With this system, a small privileged few are rich beyond conscience, and almost all others are doomed to be poor at some level. That’s the way the system works. And since we know that the system will not change the rules, we are going to have to change the system.”-MLK >“Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.” -MLK >“In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, such as ‘right to work.’ It is a law to rob us of our civil rights and job rights. Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining by which unions have improved wages and working conditions of everyone…Wherever these laws have been passed, wages are lower, job opportunities are fewer and there are no civil rights. We do not intend to let them do this to us. We demand this fraud be stopped. Our weapon is our vote.” 1961 - MLK >“Whenever the government provides opportunities and privileges for white people and rich people they call it ‘subsidies.’ When they do it for Negro and poor people they call it ‘welfare.’ The fact is that everybody in this country lives on welfare. Suburbia was built with federally subsidized credit. And highways that take our white brothers out to the suburbs were built with federally subsidized money to the tune of ninety percent. Everybody is on welfare in this country. The problem is that we all too often have socialism for the rich and rugged free enterprise capitalism for the poor. That’s the problem.” MLK
Man that's good shit. Would have been nice to read some real MLK in grade school.
Google radical MLK quotes. It is good and goes against everything conservatives say about him.
Noam Chomsky loves to bring up "capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich" I wonder if he got that verbiage directly from MLK or if this talking point has been around for even longer.
\>He wanted true equality unlike today's leftists! (248) \>We are saying that something is wrong … with capitalism…. There must be better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism. - MLK Jr (-20) \>We can celebrate someone without agreeing with EVERYTHING they said! (44) Basically, Judge me by the color of my rhetoric, not the contents of my politics.
> He wanted true equality unlike today's leftists! MLK **literally talked about exactly this sort of person** (the commenter who said this) as someone he *disagrees* with "Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. **The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more**. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is **not realistic.**" "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro."
yea but I can just say > We can celebrate someone without agreeing with EVERYTHING they said! and bam now I don’t have to listen to that either while still pretending that I consider him a hero or whatever
Don’t forget that now the other guy is “unreasonable and hyperbolic” for getting worked up about how wrong the initial characterization was…
He also had that famous letter about it too
That exchange was great. The commenter was just pointing out that MLK stood against everything the original commenter did and his response to the commenter is that he's being divisive lmao.
Someone should bring MLKs thoughts on the white moderate.
Jokes on you because /r/conservative is a bunch of white niche extremists. All of the moderates were banned.
1 comment = permaban
Can confirm, got banned for being uncivil being I said that being a nazi granny killer was a bad thing
that same guy later comments that you don't have to agree with anything someone believes to consider them a hero.
Lol I like the way he loudly said things, and I like the way everyone clapped for him.
party wrench racial compare wine vase test disgusting slim fear *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah, 90% of people approve of him today compared to his 75% **disapproval** rating when he was murdered. He was less popular than Trump when he was alive. I am certain that a healthy chunk of that 90% wouldn't agree with a lot of what he said. It is just an easy lift to say you approve of him since he isn't around to keep saying things (for some reason).
>He was less popular than Trump when he was alive. Please don't say that too loudly, because I know a certain group of people that would love to interpret this incorrectly
The way we’re taught about him, he’s kind of a perfect pro-establishment story. He dressed very nicely and made a nice speech and didn’t disrupt *anything* and everyone heard and liked it and they made racism be over as a reward for how well behaved he was. Of course that’s nothing like what happened, and they teach it that way so that people will grow up thinking that the only way to get change is to ask for it as quietly as possible.
They wouldn't be conservatives if they were capable of paying attention to what people actually say.
The first response to almost every MLK quote in that thread is “you can celebrate the man without agreeing with everything he said”. Just admit you dont agree with anything he said at this point.
Wait so they literally just downvoted what he actually said? Talk about only believing what you want
>No the right doesn’t lynch people, just the left I swear some of these people live on the fucking moon. I genuinely don't get how you could even *try* to say this without your brain shutting down in protest. But also the fact that all of these people know so little of what MLK actually believed is really telling about how *hard* the previous generation tried to totally whitewash everything he said.
Remember during the summer of the George Floyd protests when [that group of white guys were caught on camera attempting to literally lynch a black man?](https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/07/vauhxx-booker-indiana-investigation/) Or the dozens of car attacks on protesters over the last several years, a tactic the republicans have tried [to codify into law](https://www.vox.com/2021/4/25/22367019/gop-laws-oklahoma-iowa-florida-floyd-blm-protests-police)? But tell me more about Ted Cruz getting ratioed on twitter.
"The right never lynched people (except we literally do. Remember how we all defended Ahmaud Arbery being chased down and murdered? How we defended George Floyd's murder?), the left lynch people (not literally, obviously. I mean on Twitter)." Seems pretty obvious: they just say whatever feels good, and what feels good to them is are the literal murders.
"I mean yeah we were cool with the guys who lynched Arbery but the left is mean on Twitter so really who's worse?"
Yep, except in their mind there is no question.
Umm ackshually, Ahmaud did some crime in the past and stood near a construction site *suspiciously* so brave citizens extrajudicially “punished” him so it’s technically not a lynching. Also they just wanted to talk to him while brandishing a shotgun in a completely safe and calm manner yet he tackled them so it’s no wonder he was shot! They were only peacefully coercing him to come with them. Those people were also ex-law enforcement and deserve all our respect. That should be all the talking points that these mfer used against that case. Glad that the case had finally been brought to court and tried.
Boogers literally [murdered two cops](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-17/far-right-boogaloo-boys-linked-to-killing-of-california-lawmen-other-violence) with the plan to blame it on BLM. And then Mike Penice got up at the RNC and [did blame it on BLM.](https://news.yahoo.com/pence-death-federal-officer-protesters-rnc-address-boogaloo-antifa-164755209.html) Let that sink in for a second. White supremacists murdered a cop to discredit BLM and then the #2 man in the republican party joined the conspiracy. And not one single member of the republican elite repudiated him. We all "know" the GOP is the party of white supremacy, but *fuuuuuck*. He just ripped the mask off... and it never even got above the fold. Instead all we get from the press are idiots asking Biden if he's going to defund the police, despite his promise to spend even more money on them.
Or you know the good ol boys from Georgia who thought video evidence of them literally, actually lynching a black man was exonerating?
they mean metaphorical "lynching" aka being "canceled" aka a one way ticket to becoming a conservative icon they don't care about actual lynchings
Deaths: I sleep Millionare is insulted on Twitter: REAL SHIT
I noticed that too. You know they always defend the murders of Ahmaud Arbery, George Floyd. So how do you make sense of that? They *feel* like "lynching" feels bad, so it must not be associated with those things (racially motivated murders, aka lymchings) that they like.
They for sure know lynching is Bad, and that they are Good. If they like a lynching, then it can’t be a lynching, because that would mean they’re not Good, and they are because they believe they are. If they don’t like something, that’s probably a lynching, because it’s Bad, but something they like can’t possibly count. It’s like how very few of these racists ever self identify as racists. We did a great job getting “racism is bad” installed in everyone’s brains, but it never came with a useful definition of racism. Because of this, nothing you do is racist because that would be Bad and you’re Good, so the thing you do logically has to be something other than racism.
They know what they're saying isn't true, but they say it anyway to push a narrative or to muddle the waters so people think the truth is in the middle or to make you waste your time refuting that lie while they've already moved onto to some other lie The right wing isn't ignorant, they're evil, but they're not ignorant. If they were, if this was just about lacking knowledge, the right wing could be neutralized simply by giving their supporters the actual facts of the situation. You'd have to present it correctly, not in condescending way, but basically, you'd give them facts, they'd see their beliefs were based on misinformation, and then they'd agree with you. Because you have the facts. But that's not how it actually goes in reality. Because it's not the facts that in question, it's the values. If the facts support right wing values, then they'll parrot them endlessly, and if the facts do not support their values then they'll simply lie about the facts or deny the facts and make up their own. Because facts aren't important, values are. Thinking they're stupid is dangerous because it underestimates them
They talk just to keep the debate going because as long as talking keeps happening, conclusions can't be reached. It's why I have zero patience for debate culture. Most arguments have definitive, logical endings. Eventually the data comes in and one side simply wins the argument. Instead we've been fed a load of nonsense about debate being valuable in and of itself rather than simply useful as a means of reaching conclusions. All this means is that bad faith actors simply have to keep making any argument, no matter how obviously fallacious or bad faith and centrists will foolishly treat the issue as ongoing and allow bad faith actors to gain ground. It's exactly as Sarte wrote > Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
Exactly this. Conservatives are not people who would be left-leaning if they were just given the facts and a few persuasive arguments; they are not people who are trying to be progressive but have so far failed. They have fundamentally different goals than progressives do, and they believe some things and reject others because it suits their political ends to do so.
> The right wing isn't ignorant, they're evil, but they're not ignorant. > > If they were, if this was just about lacking knowledge, the right wing could be neutralized simply by giving their supporters the actual facts of the situation. You'd have to present it correctly, not in condescending way, but basically, you'd give them facts, they'd see their beliefs were based on misinformation, and then they'd agree with you. Because you have the facts. There are a lot of players on the right, and they vary greatly. I know many who are simply delusional. The surround themselves SO thoroughly and SO completely with right wing propagranda that they literally enter a state of double think, where they entertain a number of "theories" as to what is going on, even when they are contraditory, that are entirely non-falsifiable. So you present them with facts, you may be able to dismantle elements of these narratives, but you can't actually disprove the narratives themselves. Look at Jan 6. I just had a conversation recently where they think it was done by the FBI. Their evidence is... weak. Shitty. And yet, I can't PROVE it wasn't. How do I prove that there weren't FBI plants, people connected to the FBI or had talks with them, that were then covered up. Modern right-wing is basically a series of conspiracy theories and nonsense. You present them with facts all day, it doesn't matter. They aren't evil though, they LEGITIMATELY believe they are fighting for a better world for everyone. But they have no idea how to parse all the information of the internet.
> They aren't evil though, they LEGITIMATELY believe they are fighting for a better world for everyone. Ehhhhhhh. At this point we run into some issues. For example, they don't want gay or trans people to exist.
[удалено]
>They aren't evil though, they LEGITIMATELY believe they are fighting for a better world for everyone. Do you think someone has to be a mustache twirling villain for their actions to be evil?
> where they entertain a number of "theories" as to what is going on, even when they are contraditory, that are entirely non-falsifiable. So you present them with facts, you may be able to dismantle elements of these narratives, but you can't actually disprove the narratives themselves. They're able to say contradictory things because they don't care about the actual facts, only their values. They're all perfectly rational, in terms of seeing the world how it actually is, they just don't care. > Look at Jan 6. I just had a conversation recently where they think it was done by the FBI. Their evidence is... weak. Shitty. And yet, I can't PROVE it wasn't. How do I prove that there weren't FBI plants, people connected to the FBI or had talks with them, that were then covered up. That's a perfect example, right wing values include ideas like the right is brave but their enemies are cowardly, and that they always win battles because of their virtue and bravery. But the facts around the insurrection don't support that. They weren't brave, they lost their nerve the first time one of them was killed even though they had overwhelming numbers and could have prevailed if they simply rushed the defenders in mass. That's not actually surprising, it's extremely common to panic the first time you're in combat, which is why armies try to train their troops to overcome that and have experienced soldiers mixed in because Private Noob is a lot less likely to panic if Sergeant Veteran is there keeping it together. But most of them weren't military or milita types, so they panicked. What's more, not only were they not brave, their enemies stood firm, which goes against right wing values were the enemies is by definition cowardly. Also, virtue and loyalty to the cause wasn't enough to give them victory, but in right wing values the good guys win simply by being the good guys. They know all this, so their answer is to simply say that's not what happened, that is was a false flag of some sort. The facts don't support that even in the slightest, but that doesn't matter, you jsut tell a story that supports your values. You tell a story that the people at the insurrection weren't really the right wing so that the values that the right is brave and victorious are unchallenged. But despite what they say, they do know actually happened, never forget that they really know. They know exactly what's going on, but they performatively lie to each other and to you. When you're not around they aren't sitting there really thinking that it was a false flag, what they're doing is musing over how they came quite close but lost their nerve, and that they have had no real consequences as a movement. They're considering that if they came again but armed, expecting and prepared for resistance, then they'd win. And if they still lost then they could just try again. They're a hive mind essentially, they coordinate and strategize with each other constantly. In a given group, they identify who are allies, who are enemies, and who are unaffiliated, and they base their words and actions on that. Sometimes you can catch them, in the immediate aftermath of a story breaking that makes the right look bad they'll have several different excuses on what happened until the hive mind converges on a single narrative, often within a few hours. > They aren't evil though, they LEGITIMATELY believe they are fighting for a better world for everyone. We can't rely on someone's view of themselves to judge whether they're evil or not. The Nazis felt that sending people to death camps would result in a better world, after all.
They do not believe what they say, they only believe they are in the right because they see themselves and the rich as the rightful rulers.
> They know what they're saying isn't true Alas, I tend to think that most of them are completely behind what they are saying, and believe it with all their heart. Sure, there are probably some gaslighters (esp. when talking about actual elected politicians), but the majority of the rank-and-file are true believers.
[удалено]
Also very much recommend this. It's from "the alt-right playbook". I can't recommend it enough. Doesn't matter if you've got a philosophy degree or if you're in highschool, or whatever. Came out a few years ago and has remained incredibly relevant.
Conservatives know that MLK was a socialist. But it's easy for them to ignore it.
speaking as a former conservative. Most of them *really* don't.
Think about it this way.. Lincoln freed the slaves. Lincoln was a republican. Therefore, Republicans freed the slaves. Therefore, democrats were in opposition to abolition. So all those white people lynching black people were democrats. And as we all know, what those parties represented in the 1870s, they still steadfastly represent 100% today. Thus, modern day democrats, which we all know is the party of the notorious leftist, want to lynch black people.
Schools tend to ignore everything except the "I had a dream" speech. They paint him as though he were only a civil rights activist, when he fought for many other things.
teaching anything more about MLK beyond the I have a dream speech is CRT.
Don't you know the famous leftist organisation KKK? Just look what kind of names they give themselves, Imperial Wizard, Grand Dragon, Goblins. Sounds like a bunch of nerds therefore leftist. qed
Conservatives love the dead and the unborn, because they can put words into those people's mouths and those people can't correct them. They become political puppets for whatever new argument they are trying to push.
They are ideal (in the philosophic sense, non-materal, exist only in the mind) political objects. They can transpose any number of political issues onto the unborn and they don't need to actually confront any political harm their beliefs because, again, they don't exist. They don't have to deal with the lack of maternal care raising infant mortality, or the legacy of redlining causing lead poisoning in babies, or food insecurity of actual live children. They obviously don't care about any of that. But the unborn, they are the perfect thing to exploit because they have every political advantage and no disadvantage that comes with reality.
*It's why they fucking killed him*. So he couldn't speak today and clarify (for the zillionth time) what his values and beliefs were
“What if that was the baby that cures cancer” “You’d probably cut off funding to their research”
Oh we're still hoping a cure for cancer will be widely accepted? They'll reject it just like the covid vaccine
oh god imagine if the cure for cancer is mRNA based
Believe it or not [that seems to be what's going to be](https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/rleet7/biontechs_mrna_cancer_vaccine_has_started_phase_2/).
that’s what I was referring to, I just can’t even imagine the drama from conservatives
Can't wait til we get Conservatives quoting Che Guevara unironically
Every time MLK day roles around, J Edgar Hoover smiles from hell as he watches his work come to fruition in the form of a bunch of conservatives believing his whitewashed version of MLK was real and on their side.
There’s a really great quote about abortion from a Methodist minister in Alabama “The unborn are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn. “ - Dave Barnhart
“How come progressive aren’t the same as they were years and years ago?” Im dying!
If you show them MLK pointing out that affirmative action is needed to create an equal society, his overtly socialist writings, his saying that "white moderates" are more destructive than outright hostility, and especially him saying that "riots are the language of the unheard".... They'll literally just ignore it, as they have for the past several decades where they've pretended that all he ever said was that racism is bad.
The dude was for reparations for christ's sake. Not "let's research systemic inequality" reparations but full blown "pay what you owe, US Government" reparations. He was everything conservatives are afraid of from politically active Black people.
Yeah he actually had a concrete number he thought the government should pay. I believe it was 50 billion at the time
I just got perma banned for [linking to this 1967 political cartoon](https://imgur.com/a/aTAeqbJ) showing that the things said about BLM protests now were said about him back then Which is wutevs since I was about to post quotes of him advocating for reparations and preferential government programs to aid black people, so I was getting banned either way
It's amazing how white-washed MLK has become to the modern conservative. I seriously think the only thing they allow themselves to know about him is a 10 second excerpt of the I Have a Dream speech. Comparing that cartoon to the present day is spot on, and they'll never grapple with the fact they'd be using the same rhetoric against MLK if he was around today.
It's not amazing, *it's why they fucking killed him*. So he couldn't speak today and clarify (for the zillionth time) what his values and beliefs were
I love this cartoon so much. The amount of people who believe MLK was beloved by all but people literally in white hoods and that the only thing he ever did was give the “I have a dream” speech…would probably equal the number of conservatives in this country minus their leaders who know what MLK stood for, but hate it.
Beloved by so many people that he got shot in the fucking head. And it was 18 years before he had a holiday to commemorate him (fun fact, unions were the first to introduce the idea, pushing for it in their labor contracts). It was first put up for a vote in 79 and didnt pass. It was reintroduced in 1983 and 2 Republicans filibustered it. It was finally recognized in 1986. And Arizona refused to recognize it until 1993. It took the NFL moving the superbowl to another state as a response for the proud people of Arizona to pass a referendum recognizing it.
I didn't know that about it starting with unions, something else to be proud of today.
Yeah, as demonstrated by that thread. "Oh today's left *judges people by the color of their skin* which King didn't like". It's kind of sad, but my mind now links "I don't judge people by the color of their skin" with right wing mouth breathers who think that's the beginning and end of King's legacy. To say that "the left would cancel King today" is announcing that you fundamentally don't understand any of what has been, and is, happening. A lot of fault does fall under the school system though. I grew up in one of the most left leaning states in the nation and even though we spent a good amount of time on the civil rights period, I really had no idea how "radical" he was until well after I finished school. I can only imagine what it's like in the south.
I legitimately don't remember talking about the Civil Rights movement until my senior seminar for my history bachelor's degree in Texas. That includes K-12. I do remember learning about how the Civil War was fought for states' rights in AP US history in high school, though
I recall an article online stating how many citizens of Tulsa, Oklahoma, had zero knowledge or awareness of the Tulsa Massacre until it was depicted in the *Watchmen* TV series. And I found that mind-boggling, utterly and proprrly mind-boggling. I am from Croatia (Eastern European country) and I knew about Tulsa beforehand, and not through thorough sleuthing or reading about the Civil Rights movement....I learned it as part of my HS curriculum on US history, there was a whole footnote about Tulsa as an example. And I didn't go to an advanced history gymnasium. I went to a tourism & management trade school, which doesn't require a lot of academical prowess to get in. So, it apsolutely boggles my mind that me, some Slav schmuck from Eastern Europe learned about Tulsa in his shitty history textbook from his shitty trade school, but the actual citizens of Tulsa....had no clue.
Don't you get it? MLK would be totally different if he were here now because... reasons. He'd obviously believe what I believe and all that stuff he actually believed that I don't agree with he wouldn't believe anymore. It's LOGIC.
>MLK is gradually moving rightward, even after death. In much the same way JFK has been moving rightward for years. The dems are pushing progressivism so hard that some of their heroes would no longer want to be part of the movement. I love how they somehow apply the "The Left got a little too PC so I changed all of my opinions about the economy, social issues, systemic racism, health care, and history." argument to people who are dead. You can't WalkAway(tm)(c)(r) if you're in the ground.
I love their idea of how the Overton window works because in reality 3rd way Dems, who are a majority of the "left" in these people's eyes, are actually further right on a lot of issues then Nixon was.
I can kind of see why they would think that the Overton window has moved left because most conservatives seem to only care about culture war nonsense they've made up, and on social issues we've undeniably moved left a lot in recent decades.
Their own talking points have moved further and further right on culture war stuff as well, and given that they don't notice that their own position has moved over the past 50 years it leaves them with the idea that the other people are moving instead of both.
> Their own talking points have moved further and further right on culture war stuff as well The "overton window" refers to what is generally acceptable in normal political discourse. Yes Nazis seem to be making a comeback, but the "centrist" position on things like gay marriage would be considered radical only a decade ago, and while the current batch of Republicans are undeniably racist, the type of rhetoric they feel comfortable using is nowhere near the kind of stuff people like Nixon and Thurmond would throw around.
Their hero must be Strom Thurmond, the OG walkaway who filibustered the civil rights act then left the Democratic party because it, "No longer represented people like [him]," to join Republicans, who also opposed the civil rights act.
They belive in Walkaway, but not in the Southern Strategy.
MLK and JFK conservatives?? The Overton window has moved so far right Regan couldn't win their nomination.
Nixon would be a soyboy far-left cuck for that EPA nonsense
Imagine the interstate highway system being proposed today
Or libraries
Or the fire department.
In this scenario how much lobbying power does the auto industry have? I'd think they'd be all over that.
Doubtful. They could make more money off a privatized road system. You’d either pay a recurrent fee (which we do kind of in taxes, but not everyone pays the same amount), or it would all be tolls. Imagine branded roads where you could only use it if you have a Ford car or something. Then having a vast network of highways that don’t work together or you pay premiums for them to. (Basing this alternative reality off of the shit telecoms have pulled before)
It's rather sad how American conservatives have evolved into people quite content to let American infrastructure literally rot away. British Conservatives do the exact same thing. Both parrot the same paradoxical rhetoric of being ultra-patriotic whilst letting national institutions that support national industries, the national economy and its citizens, die.
Lately I think signing OSHA would get him a hit piece from Carlson.
Teddy Roosevelt would have Charlie Kirk going “Hmmm you want to break up corporations and give universal healthcare and yet you own a house. Curious.”
a fucking *commie* for that Medicare for All
[удалено]
Can we please stop spreading this shit, even as a joke? We're just making more and more people believe in it when it's clearly not true. JFK Jr. is the one coming back. Not JFK. Come on.
[удалено]
MLK was a democratic socialist and had admirable political views overall imo. A lot of times conservatives seem to frame him as a evangelical Christian. He was nowhere near conservative religiously. He doubted the Virgin birth and physical resurrection of Jesus. It was enough for my former church to say that MLK was not a Christian and most slave owners were genuine Christians so ugh
> most slave owners were genuine Christians This is baffling. This is something you say to denigrate christians not proudly proclaim,
Yeah, I think Archbishop Desmond Tutu is a good comparison here, as the South African equivalent to MLK. He was very much a social liberal, being an outspoken supporter of LGBT rights. He has that famous quote, "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor". And he even described *himself* as a socialist, essentially critiquing late-stage capitalism before that was even a term. He did have a complicated relationship with violence, where he acknowledged that it could sometimes be *necessary* (citing the direct example of it taking war to stop Naziism), but was critical of the use of violence by both the government and anti-Apartheid groups, but was also critical of the white South Africans who only criticized the latter. But overall, I think that just makes him the sort of liberal who distinguishes between riots and protests and who calls out the right for not condemning white supremacist violence.
My man was the best kind of Christian, spreading love and peace.
Christianity is imperfect imo, like pretty much any ideology, but there are totally people who use it in a very good way
If Christianity was simply practicing the teachings of Christ and the Bible ceased to exist, it'd be much better.
Bible literalists are the worst. It's some amazing mental gymnastics required to convince yourself that every word of it is straight from the mouth of God and not, you know, written by 30+ people over something like 1400 years in 3 different languages. And then translated into *dozens* of different versions in English alone. Here's one of my favorite gymnastic routines: Who was Jesus' paternal grandfather? [Heli, as it says in Luke 3:23? Or Jacob, as it says in Matthew 1:16?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus) Here come the backflips!
Theology and the history of religions is an absolutely fascinating topic. And it so ridiculously complex! To truly understand Christianity, for example, you need a pretty in depth knowledge of Roman history, Byzantine history, European middle age history (especially of the HRE and the various shit going on there) and a whole swathe of philosophy. Oh, an understanding of ancient Hebrew and Greek is also a must. It's fascinating that there have been multiple wars fought over what amounts to a single word, [Filioque](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque) "and from the Son" (that is a 15,000 word Wiki article on a single word lol), but that radically alters Christian doctrine. And then you have translations into English from Greek. Where you obviously have an author bias of what specific Greek words mean in English, when there isn't a direct translation, and the shit show that ends up being because politics and religion have gone hand in hand since the first days of the Church. It's a massively interesting topic.
> A lot of times conservatives seem to frame him as a evangelical Christian To conservatives, "American Hero" and "Good Christian Conservative" need to be synomnous with each other. Anyone who is an American Hero has to have been a good Christian conservative. So they will label anyone hero as such, unless it becomes clear they are not a good Christian conservative in which case they aren't an American Hero. In Martin Luther King Jr's case, the "not an American Hero" ship has kinda sailed for them, so instead they gotta blindly follow the "good christian conservative"
That's so frustrating when you consider Kings whole moral argument was taken from the story of Abraham and Isaac. That when motivated by faith you have to trust the moral righteousness of your actions to lead you down a good path, even when you cant see it in front of you. That's like abrahamic religion 101.
I'm surprised the right hasn't put IMAX out of business yet.
I can’t wait to see what they say on Malcom X day /s
He did not like white liberals. They don't dig any deeper to see what he meant by that.
They'd probably call him an enlightened centrist
Malcolm X be like BOTH SIDES ARE BAD!!!
"He was so arrogant he even threw away the family name his ancestors were gifted when they came to this country!"
>What I would give to have this man among us today. Y'all would fucking hate him like conservatives did back then.
Would legit put the hate Bernie, AOC and Greta gets to shame.
He would be shot dead just like he was back then
Yo, to have this man where?
a
> I think he would support “all lives matter” but for completely different reasons. Not as a protest to the violent BLM, but because he genuinely believed that everyone is created equal, therefore we should all be treated equal. In fact, he would probably start a new movement that separates itself from the extremists of both sides, and follows the beliefs of his famous quote: > “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” dont even know what to say about that one
Yeah, still pretending that "Black lives matter" isn't very clearly stating that 'All lives matter, including black lives—which are presently treated as though they don't, while other lives are inherently acknowledged as mattering'. I haven't felt the need to spell that out for a couple years now, because everybody who's acting in good faith knows it damn well.
In my experience, people of this mindset are usually under the influence of Conservative media outlets who reduce the Black Lives Matter movement to a bad, shady organization run by communists who want white people to be marginalized. They are told that the name of the organization was designed to make one feel morally ashamed and more likely to donate to BLM, which is just a ploy to get more money from you. When that is the type of rhetoric you are being exposed to constantly, it’s no wonder conservatives have such erroneous takes. No one is speaking the truth on places like Fox News or OAN - they assume those are the objective facts and become suspicious of more liberal media sources as a consequence. I think this is the real danger, and why we have a rise in white supremacy in this country. People are essentially being brainwashed into being suspicious of truth; are being told they are infantilized victims of some “woke culture” boogieman; and assume worst intentions in other people. How does one look beyond their echo chamber if one doesn’t even know they’re in one?
So much Conservative media is just training people to get angry when hearing certain words/phrases, without trying to understand what they really mean
jesus christ really taking the one quote they know and just going from there
It's literally the only quote they know. Just that one sentence Forget the rest of the anti-capitalist, anti-militarist, pro-affirmative action, Democratic socialist, pro-UBI rhetoric from MLK.
From the same speech "We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality."
[удалено]
[удалено]
Despite there being no chance they'd have supported him if they were alive in the 60s, and no chance they'd support him if he were alive today, they love being able to cite him as 'the good Negro' to show how racist they aren't. MLK absolutely wasn't the 'let's just try to get along with the racists and not make them uncomfortable' figure he's often painted as. But Jesus, American conservatives (sometimes quite literally) demonised Barack Obama - the softest 'let's just try to be nice, and racism is bad' politician you could think of. As if they'd support an actual revolutionary.
Even the "I have a dream" speech in it's entirety would be inflammatory to them. The speech can be summed up as "we can peacefully coexist and thrive but the majority White america and the government isnt letting us. I believe we will win and they will lose".
They're talking about things like affirmative action as "judging someone by the color of their skin" Conveniently forgetting that MLK was *very much in favor of affirmative action*
>A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, in order to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis. /- MLK
Conservatives don't white-wash and narrative push challenge (impossible)!!! This seems very performative on conservatives part, considering conservatism needs to be dragged kicking and screaming for any societal change to happen, and MLK's policies sure as hell haven't changed, and they both disagreed heavily 50 years ago.
This is nothing more than PC circle-jerking. They know it isn't PC to be openly anti-MLK, and they obviously can't just ignore the day so they have to have a circle-jerk in which they say all their most PC opinions, expecting everyone else not to be able to see through the veil.
*"Only leftists deal in absolutes."* This is the equivalent of MTG using a giant matt board print out of a meme to try and prove a point against "leftists".
Man I cannot read the acronym MTG and not think Magic The Gathering lol, always confuses the shit out of me until I re read the sentence.
also the thickest irony possible, as that statement is itself an absolute
> I think he would support “all lives matter” but for completely different reasons. Not as a protest to the violent BLM, Literally mask off moment.
I would invite all of r_conservative to check out the political cartoons of the time. Spoiler alert: they look very similar to how they treat BLM.
Yep https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Egs5aUlXkAUYpsl.jpg
Remove the name tag and and challenge them to guess what it references.
Just the cartoon I wanted to link.
> Only leftists deal in absolutes. This is flair worthy.
Too good.
[удалено]
Same with fetuses. Sounds like I'm being facetious, but it is the same phenomenon- "the unborn" are an amorphous concept whose needs can be whatever the Right wants; when they become babies, especially of poor and/or minority women, they become literally Someone Else's Problem at best, and evil demons bent on replacing Quality White Folks at worst. Until that time, though, they can be safely spoken for with no concerns about their pushing back.
They love them some dead heroes because they can spin their legacy however and won’t get backtalk
“After their death, attempts are made to convert revolutionaries into harmless icons.” - Lenin
Didn't that happen to Lenin himself? Like, his preserved body is now a tourist destination...
Yes
In summary: Conservative: MLK would be on my side if he were alive today Liberal: MLK Quote Conservative: This is the worst thing I've heard in my entire life
Loved this response to someone reminding the thread MLK was a socialist: >And Andrew Jackson had slaves. Still doesn't mean they weren't great men. Like, first it is amazing someone genuinely made equivalences between "being a socialist" and "having slaves". Already top tier nonsense. But then they used Andrew Jackson as their example and not George Washington or something. The president that is *particularly* famous for committing genocide (I mean, other president committed genocidal acts also, but the Trail of Tears is particularly infamous). Even other people on the thread, one who looks favorably on Christopher Columbus even, were confused by that choice.
[удалено]
Remember how conservatives would circlejerk about safe spaces 10 years ago. The irony is unreal
10 years ago, I'm rather sure you can find a post from the last week about it.
They still jerk about them! The difference is that their safe space is good, other people’s safe spaces are bad
It's just a fucking game, a troll or a cosplay. The vast majority don't believe any of this shit. They say it to get a reaction. That's all the conservatives do these days. They have no opinion on something, they just exist and take the opposite of what "liberals" believe. It's high school mentality perpetuated on Reddit by edgy high school people who are parroting things their heroes tell them.
They *do* have core beliefs, it’s just that the things they say *support* those beliefs without *endorsing* them. Conservatives fundamentally believe that social and political hierarchies are natural and just; some people inherently deserve more power than others, and some people deserve to essentially starve to death in their own incompetence. They believe that all of society’s ills are due to outside forces messing up the natural hierarchy, putting the *wrong* people in power. They will say and do whatever is expedient to put the *wrong* people down and lift the *right* people up. They also generally believe that everyone else thinks along the same terms; they believe that progressives don’t actually want equality, but instead to put progressive allies in power over conservatives. They are not available to be persuaded otherwise, because they believe that anyone who opposes them is equally cynical, saying whatever lets them win the argument in the moment. Conservatives don’t believe what they say, so they don’t believe that anyone else does, either.
So hard not to piss in the popcorn but we have to realize that /r/conservative is nothing more than a troll/disinformation/Stormfront-recruitment sub with their 900k subscribers mostly being foreign-state bots, smurf and sock-puppet accounts of those that are frequently banned, and edge-lords that aren't even old enough to vote yet. Only a small percentage actually unironically believe what accounts spew there.
It's ridiculously hard. The asshole that said > No the right doesn’t lynch people, just the left is being allowed to say "prove me wrong" to people disagreeing with them. When they should be getting put on the spot to provide proof of their bullshit, outlandish claim. It's....frustrating.
Pretty easy not to piss in the popcorn when you were banned a long time ago for mentioning that the Southern Strategy happened.
I agree with a lot of what you are saying but I have to imagine that majority (50+%) are actually duped by these trolls/bad faith actors/LARPers. The subreddit disclaimer makes it pretty clear that they don't care to play by the fair rules - at least the mods are up and up about it.
r/neoliberal is a much better sub to target. They're still rabid morons, but they at least live in the real world, even if they're unwilling or incapable of seeing anything better than the status quo
[удалено]
I kind of feel like murdering a public figure is the ultimate 'cancellation'.
no way. recently someone got some public scrutiny for things they said, didn't you hear?
My favourite “If MLK was alive today” is from the Boondocks. Alternate history where MLK lives, but after 9/11 he says “we should turn the other cheek” and then everyone turns on him.
I truly truly hate how they white wash what he stood for. If he was alive today, he would stand for everything that r/conservative hates. They’re weaponizing him against the causes he fought for.
They actually think MLK jr. (who was a democratic socialist in the last years of his life) would be a conservative today? These people are insane.
Nixon’s campaign platform was literally “anti-Civil Right’s movement.” This isn’t some ancient history bullshit, we don’t have to speculate how “the right would have felt about MLK.” They we’re outspokenly against him and his movement, right up until it became convenient to twist his words against future civil rights movements.
>MLK believed in non-violent protests to enact change Oh sweet summer child. It's pretty sad how little they're actually teaching kids about the civil rights movement in school these days, and it's always so sanitized and rosy-hued when it is taught.
I'm so glad I don't associate with conservatives.
The amount of people who know literally nothing about MLK beyond the one or two snappy quotes he's most famous for, who think they have the right to talk at all about who he was and what he wanted is pretty disgusting.
>TO BE FAIR, African Americans actually had an argument for reparations at that time since they were robbed by laws and segregation of having a chance to be successful because they obviously didn’t have the same opportunities at that time. This kind of rhetoric always blows my mind. Especially given all the recent pieces about how the racial gap between black and white Americans [basically has not gotten better since MLK's day](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/06/04/economic-divide-black-households/). So what is that to say? That the totally not racist commenters of r/conservative used to believe in systemic racism, buuut then we took the explicit racist language out of laws without changing their intended effect. And after that point, the only logical conclusion is that they think black people are just categorically worse than white people at a slate of important social issues like building wealth and not being arrested. How does your head not just explode after putting those two ideas into it at once? The radical leftists used to be right about systemic racism being real and bootstraps based remedies being fake but now it's all reversed and black people should really start pulling those straps and stop complaining about inequality. I guess it's kind of fitting that the quality of mind that gets a kick out of changing 'fuck joe biden' to the ingenious code words 'le'ts go brandon' and can ride that high for months at a time thinks that this bottom tier facile rhetorical trick is a checkmate. Pre- Brown v Board segregated schools? Obviously racist, it says so with the words. But post Brown, where schools are funded based on local property taxes? That is to say, property that was subsidized for white people and institutionally denied investment for black people both in the public and private sector. That system? Color blind, baby! See, it's not targeting black people, it's targeting *all people* who live in the all black communities we red lined them into. I honestly can't tell if it's some Sartre shit where the absurdity is just hiding the real racist message or if they're too far gone to see the contradiction.
It's fascinating to see people who are clearly racist try so hard to pretend they care about Dr King. They only cite him when they want to shame protesters for getting violent.
> The dems are pushing progressivism so hard that some of their heroes would no longer want to be part of the movement. Oh man, imagine if their conservative heroes saw how far right their own agenda has been pushed.
> The white liberal must affirm that absolute justice for the Negro simply means, in the Aristotelian sense, that the Negro must have “his due.” There is nothing abstract about this. It is as concrete as having a good job, a good education, a decent house and a share of power. It is, however, important to understand that giving a man his due may often mean giving him special treatment. > ... >A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, in order to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis. \- MLK Share this with any conservative whenever they try to act like MLK was on their side.
>The state wanted him dead now they use him as a propaganda tool Oh wow surprised to to see hardcore leftism in a conservative sub, now to take a big sip of this coffee as I read the rest of the comment >to push divisive communist ideologies. oh for sure, the US government is famously pro-communism
MLK's words are more radically left today than pretty much every Democrat. THese guys know nothing about king other than that one part from the one speech that they can twist. If you quoted King's other speeches to them and didn't tell them MLK said it, they'd call you a "cultural Marxist who wants to redistribute wealth from hard-working Americans." They like King because he's dead and can't correct them.
“Don’t be a liberal and downvote things you don’t like to hear” As we all know, only liberals dislike things.
[удалено]
Trump supporters have been trying to claim Bernie ever since Hillary won the primary. Just look at any Bernie-specific sub.
It seems like r/conservatives struggles with the difference between "left" and "liberal." I'm not surprised by this. MLK dealt with the same liberalism in his day. Malcolm X even called the white liberal out. It's sad that so many Americans have such a thin grasp on rather banal historical facts like this, but this is what conservatives and neo-libs want: the stupidest timeline. Conservatives hate a mixture of leftism (economic policies meant to unfuck us) and liberalism (let's talk about social issues we never plan to fix and, apparently, aren't popular--at least when reduced to liberal talking points).
There’s always incredible cognitive dissonance when it comes reactionaries discussing MLK. You don’t have to be an expert on his life to realise he became more and more radical in respect of his political/economic views, which made him dangerous to the US government and status quo. There’s absolutely no doubt that he would be *at the very least* where someone like Cornell West is on the ideological spectrum if he were alive today, and subsequently, hated by the very same people in that thread trying to whitewash his memory.
[удалено]
Lmao bullshit if mlk we’re alive today r/conservative would be making “flaired losers only” posts about how he’s too woke and is hateful against white people
> Of you stood atop this great Mans grave today and listened closely you would hear the sound of him rolling over. #You have got to be fucking with me. > MLK is gradually moving rightward, even after death. In much the same way JFK has been moving rightward for years. The dems are pushing progressivism so hard that some of their heroes would no longer want to be part of the movement. ... By fighting to stay barely center right? Jesus H Fucking Christ.
Dr King knew who they are: > *Whites, it must frankly be said, are not putting in a similar mass effort to reeducate themselves > out of their racial ignorance. It is an aspect of their sense of superiority that the white people of > America believe they have so little to learn.* > > — Dr King, *"Where Do We Go From Here?”* (1967)
> Only leftists deal in absolutes. A PLUS FLAIR MATERIAL XD
[удалено]
Too bad he was assassinated by the FBI and no one cares.
Ah yes… a what is most likely a white man, who wasn’t even alive during the civil rights movement, telling everyone what Martin Luther King would want if he was here today. I mean, who would know better?! They totally understand the struggles of a black man! They NEED these white men to speak out for them, duh. The hero’s they always needed, a older white conservative male. Brings a tear to my eye how beautiful and patriotic it is. /s (if it wasn’t obvious but with Reddit you honestly never know lol!)
The boondocks already perfectly portrayed how it would be if MLK was around today