3 ms·

Again, untrue. If I invoke some random quote in a scenario that is nonsensical or lacks context and you take umbrage, you are not condemning the original quote

Again, untrue. If I invoke some random quote in a scenario that is nonsensical or lacks context and you take umbrage, you are not condemning the original quote, but my use/abuse of it. > The overall result is still that an anti-racist quote is being condemned, because it contradicts the narrative desired by the political test. Nope, the article makes this clear: > Don't quote Martin Luther King, on judgement by content of character rather than color of skin. It is, again, the use or misuse of the quote and that's what's condemned, not the original quote.

mindslight 7y ago
Obviously the administrators of the test are not condemning MLK himself, nor what he said outright. If they were asked by someone of appropriate standing, they would most certainly agree with the quote itself. So the distinction of "use" is redundant - where I've said they've condemned the quote, I mean they've condemned usage of it. > Don't quote Martin Luther King, on judgement by content of character rather than color of skin. A good faith reading of the original article includes the implication that use of said quote is part of a reasonable argument that contradicts the desired political dogma. Presumably you do agree that these exist?
- eesmith 7y ago
  I agree with nkozyra. Many people use that quote for something which is NOT "a reasonable argument". It's been so often misused that it has acquired a meaning different than what MLK intended it to mean. As a result, it's almost impossible to use in a reasonable argument, or more strongly, those who can make a reasonable argument on the topic know to not use the quote because it will be willfully misinterpreted. Consider the Black Lives Matter movement as a concrete example. "Black Lives Matter" doesn't mean that no other lives matter, "it means that Black lives, which are seen as without value within White supremacy, are important to your liberation. Given the disproportionate impact state violence has on Black lives, we understand that when Black people in this country get free, the benefits will be wide reaching and transformative for society as a whole." - https://www.thefeministwire.com/2014/10/blacklivesmatter-2/ https://www.thefeministwire.com/2014/10/blacklivesmatter-2/ One reaction to BLM is to argue that "All Lives Matter" and that it's wrong to single out blacks. Some of those who make that argument repeat that famous MLK quote. But as many have pointed out, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the BLM movement. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Lives_Matter#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Lives_Matter#Criticism for some of the criticism - which I think are valid. That is, the "All Lives Matter" reaction serves mostly to cover up or ignore the actual systemic and structural racism which have affected black people in the US for centuries. Again, with a concrete example, until it was prohibited in the 1970s, redlining was used to segregate blacks and whites. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining for details. Blacks had higher interest rates, and were often only able to live in poorer parts of town. Until its was prohibited in 1968, covenenta were often used to exclude blacks from the new postwar suburbs. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_(law)#Exclusionary_Covenants_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_(law)#Exclusionary_Co... . As a result, black families in the US generally did not have the same ability to build wealth through home equity that white families did. Even though those overt practices are now illegal, there are still black people alive who directly suffered from these racially biased laws. I am convinced that there is a need for reparations, for institutional actions done to people who are still alive. Just like we gave reparations to the Japanese-Americans interned during WWII. But many oppose any talk of reparations by using that same MLK quote. Because of course any reparations for black people who faced life-long effects of the then-legal racial discrimination must necessarily concern race. Thus, that MLK quote seems often used as a way to justify ignoring any of the concrete, real-world problems that blacks face. This is a willful misreading of that quote, because MLK supported reparations - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.#Compensation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.#Compens... . Now, certainly some people use that quote naively, without understanding how it's been re-appropriated. But this means those people also don't have a basic understanding of the issues involved, which means they are not using that quote as "part of a reasonable argument." FWIW, My experiences is also that most people who use that quote do so from cherry picking. They don't agree with most of the rest of MLK's views, like reparations (above) or his view that "There must be a better distribution of wealth, and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism", or his anti-war "Beyond Vietnam" speech.
  - mindslight 7y ago
    > Many people use that quote for something which is NOT "a reasonable argument". This is dodging the idea of the quote being used for a reasonable argument, taking the article in good faith. I'm of the belief that words themselves have meaning. The MLK quote is itself decidedly anti-racist, regardless of who speaks it. > I am convinced that there is a need for reparations, for institutional actions done to people who are still alive. I get this. I'm not opposed to this, and unfortunately there are no easy answers due to how long and all-encompassing it was (is). But when reparations take the form of more institutional racism, this should not be glossed over with euphemisms. Even if specific reparations are appropriate, it is still ultimately contributing to general racism - elevating superficial group characteristics over individual qualities - and this needs to be respected rather than downplayed. My qualm here is that these institutions are not merely having their employees carry out racist policies, but rather they are insisting that everyone internalize it into their own worldview. This is what makes for a political test - in this environment it's unacceptable follow the university's rubrics and then earnestly ignore race. Rather if you possess the "wrong" skin color, you must always be overtly atoning. Much of your comment is itself just drawing lines in the sand and imparting imagined motives to an outgroup that isn't fully parroting your dogma. This is the same exact anti-individualist cancer that drives racism/religion/etc in the first place.
    - eesmith 7y ago
      Rather than dodge the idea, I'll say directly - John H. Cochrane is not making his argument in good faith. For the reasons I gave earlier, the quote is a known hot-button topic and cannot simply be used as an example without pushing that button. Either he's pushing that button deliberately (if so, why?) or he's ignorant of the issues. Is your assertion that it's impossible for an anti-racist quote to be used to whitewash racism? When someone says "Oh, I don't see color", does that mean they aren't racist? Or does that mean they aren't capable of seeing actual race-based discrimination, and so perpetuate the problem? > But when reparations take the form of more institutional racism Why do you, who argue for accepting an argument in good faith, jump immediately to reparations in the form of more institutional racism? I never mentioned any such reparations. There are many forms of reparations. A U.S. Truth and Reconciliation Commission concerning America's legacy of white supremacy is part of the call for reparations, and that's not institutional racism. Unless ... do you consider the reparations to Japanese-American held in US concentration camps to be institutional racism? Do you think MLK's call for reparations was racist? > This is the same exact anti-individualist cancer Wow. Are you really othering me just after you dismissed "dogma" and "outgroup"? Where's your good faith now?

mindslight 7y ago

Obviously the administrators of the test are not condemning MLK himself, nor what he said outright. If they were asked by someone of appropriate standing, they would most certainly agree with the quote itself. So the distinction of "use" is redundant - where I've said they've condemned the quote, I mean they've condemned usage of it. > Don't quote Martin Luther King, on judgement by content of character rather than color of skin. A good faith reading of the original article includes the implication that use of said quote is part of a reasonable argument that contradicts the desired political dogma. Presumably you do agree that these exist?

eesmith 7y ago
I agree with nkozyra. Many people use that quote for something which is NOT "a reasonable argument". It's been so often misused that it has acquired a meaning different than what MLK intended it to mean. As a result, it's almost impossible to use in a reasonable argument, or more strongly, those who can make a reasonable argument on the topic know to not use the quote because it will be willfully misinterpreted. Consider the Black Lives Matter movement as a concrete example. "Black Lives Matter" doesn't mean that no other lives matter, "it means that Black lives, which are seen as without value within White supremacy, are important to your liberation. Given the disproportionate impact state violence has on Black lives, we understand that when Black people in this country get free, the benefits will be wide reaching and transformative for society as a whole." - https://www.thefeministwire.com/2014/10/blacklivesmatter-2/ https://www.thefeministwire.com/2014/10/blacklivesmatter-2/ One reaction to BLM is to argue that "All Lives Matter" and that it's wrong to single out blacks. Some of those who make that argument repeat that famous MLK quote. But as many have pointed out, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the BLM movement. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Lives_Matter#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Lives_Matter#Criticism for some of the criticism - which I think are valid. That is, the "All Lives Matter" reaction serves mostly to cover up or ignore the actual systemic and structural racism which have affected black people in the US for centuries. Again, with a concrete example, until it was prohibited in the 1970s, redlining was used to segregate blacks and whites. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining for details. Blacks had higher interest rates, and were often only able to live in poorer parts of town. Until its was prohibited in 1968, covenenta were often used to exclude blacks from the new postwar suburbs. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_(law)#Exclusionary_Covenants_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_(law)#Exclusionary_Co... . As a result, black families in the US generally did not have the same ability to build wealth through home equity that white families did. Even though those overt practices are now illegal, there are still black people alive who directly suffered from these racially biased laws. I am convinced that there is a need for reparations, for institutional actions done to people who are still alive. Just like we gave reparations to the Japanese-Americans interned during WWII. But many oppose any talk of reparations by using that same MLK quote. Because of course any reparations for black people who faced life-long effects of the then-legal racial discrimination must necessarily concern race. Thus, that MLK quote seems often used as a way to justify ignoring any of the concrete, real-world problems that blacks face. This is a willful misreading of that quote, because MLK supported reparations - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.#Compensation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.#Compens... . Now, certainly some people use that quote naively, without understanding how it's been re-appropriated. But this means those people also don't have a basic understanding of the issues involved, which means they are not using that quote as "part of a reasonable argument." FWIW, My experiences is also that most people who use that quote do so from cherry picking. They don't agree with most of the rest of MLK's views, like reparations (above) or his view that "There must be a better distribution of wealth, and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism", or his anti-war "Beyond Vietnam" speech.
- mindslight 7y ago
  > Many people use that quote for something which is NOT "a reasonable argument". This is dodging the idea of the quote being used for a reasonable argument, taking the article in good faith. I'm of the belief that words themselves have meaning. The MLK quote is itself decidedly anti-racist, regardless of who speaks it. > I am convinced that there is a need for reparations, for institutional actions done to people who are still alive. I get this. I'm not opposed to this, and unfortunately there are no easy answers due to how long and all-encompassing it was (is). But when reparations take the form of more institutional racism, this should not be glossed over with euphemisms. Even if specific reparations are appropriate, it is still ultimately contributing to general racism - elevating superficial group characteristics over individual qualities - and this needs to be respected rather than downplayed. My qualm here is that these institutions are not merely having their employees carry out racist policies, but rather they are insisting that everyone internalize it into their own worldview. This is what makes for a political test - in this environment it's unacceptable follow the university's rubrics and then earnestly ignore race. Rather if you possess the "wrong" skin color, you must always be overtly atoning. Much of your comment is itself just drawing lines in the sand and imparting imagined motives to an outgroup that isn't fully parroting your dogma. This is the same exact anti-individualist cancer that drives racism/religion/etc in the first place.
  - eesmith 7y ago
    Rather than dodge the idea, I'll say directly - John H. Cochrane is not making his argument in good faith. For the reasons I gave earlier, the quote is a known hot-button topic and cannot simply be used as an example without pushing that button. Either he's pushing that button deliberately (if so, why?) or he's ignorant of the issues. Is your assertion that it's impossible for an anti-racist quote to be used to whitewash racism? When someone says "Oh, I don't see color", does that mean they aren't racist? Or does that mean they aren't capable of seeing actual race-based discrimination, and so perpetuate the problem? > But when reparations take the form of more institutional racism Why do you, who argue for accepting an argument in good faith, jump immediately to reparations in the form of more institutional racism? I never mentioned any such reparations. There are many forms of reparations. A U.S. Truth and Reconciliation Commission concerning America's legacy of white supremacy is part of the call for reparations, and that's not institutional racism. Unless ... do you consider the reparations to Japanese-American held in US concentration camps to be institutional racism? Do you think MLK's call for reparations was racist? > This is the same exact anti-individualist cancer Wow. Are you really othering me just after you dismissed "dogma" and "outgroup"? Where's your good faith now?