5 ms·
>Relentless oppression must be broken. I am going to quote the man who has arguably done the most to end oppression in the USA. "Darkness cannot drive out dar
by Veelox 9y ago
>Relentless oppression must be broken.
I am going to quote the man who has arguably done the most to end oppression in the USA.
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." - MLKJ
- rectang 9y agoDefend the unjust status quo, squealing at the most minor affronts and drawing false equivalencies. It will last as long as you live, and you'll never give up. Society will just have to leave you behind.
- asabjorn 9y agoMany of the opinions listed in this article are held by sometimes a majority of the population, so this is not about the rule of the many because if so you could legislate this and resolve it through the courts. As MLK said, you do not drive out darkness with darkness.
- rectang 9y agoThose who decry darkness by the oppressed yet tolerate darkness by the dominant are not fit to quote MLK.
- asabjorn 9y agoOur democracy is fragile and is not the default state of our society, and speech is central to democracy. I defend all sides right to speak and if appropriate advocate for a change of laws. One of the last times this happened it was McCarthyism, and many communists and socialists had their freedom of speech taken away. However, that time it was done through the judicial system so this time is arguably more dangerous as it is done in an extrajudicial manner. I think what you are arguing for is a non-inclusive society where democratic discourse is not possible, and where mob-rule is tolerated and rule of law is not expected. Edit: I would like to point out that MLK was a strong believer in democracy and justice.
- koverstreet 9y agoHoly crap, talk about false equivalencies. The parent was disagreeing with your tactics, and you equate that with defending the status quo. You crusaders and your "You're either with us or against us" mentality are the worst.
- rectang 9y agoIt seems that you have chosen to ignore upthread accusations of McCarthyism by the same author. That's not constructive criticism over tactical disagreements, it's concern trolling.
- asabjorn 9y agoIf you are pointing to my comment I was not trolling at all. McCarthyism had some of the same properties when it comes to suppressing free speech, but the current environment is also very different in that it is done outside the court system by a mob with no due process. That is more worrisome to me. If you disagree I would like to hear an argument for how it is different. How do you think the way opinions are suppressed does not violate basic rights of free speech and due process? How do you think calling for someones firing for having an opinion with no due process is a rule of law?
- rectang 9y agoYou want me to explain how I'm not a McCarthyite? Why not ask something more civil, like "When did you stop beating your wife?"
- asabjorn 9y agoI am asking you to answer the questions I posed instead of making counteraccusations. If you make a good argument I am happy to listen and change my position. Denying everything, never admitting to what other observe even if it might have merit, and making counteraccusations instead of answering direct questions that are reasonable does not make a position any more correct. This kind of tactic to avoid shining light on an agenda and discussing it is very dangerous to a democracy, and to be honest it kind of proves my point.