4 ms·

It's a very odd paradigm that we have in the US right now. To commemorate MLK Jr. Day, the CTO of the large company at which I work, sent out an email advocati

It's a very odd paradigm that we have in the US right now. To commemorate MLK Jr. Day, the CTO of the large company at which I work, sent out an email advocating for more political violence to promote racial justice issues, along with some circa-1960's quotes on the need for political violence. And this came only a couple weeks after the CTO spent a great deal of time decrying the capitol riot. EDIT: It was done through adding emphasis to certain portions of Dr. King's "Letter From Birmingham Jail". In bold font: > who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ganoushoreilly 6y ago
It's hypocrisy all around. Let us kill racism by splitting people up into groups. Lets relegate people to certain groups based on some sort of factor, hmm, maybe skin color? Yeah that's cool because that's not racist. It's the same as the lack of admittance that the Capital Riot and a Year of riots around the US were all horrible. One did billions in damage to the US for months, the other a few broken windows and doors. Yet we're supposed to be mad that one group did something stupid, but respect the other because, they had an emotional right to it. How about everyone that participated in rioting regardless of the cause, are morons that should be held accountable.
- steve_adams_86 6y ago
  The rioting that occurred for BLM is quite different from the insurrection. Black people in the USA have faced various degrees of oppression at individual and systemic levels for generations. There’s not just residue of that left in the country, but real substance still present from day to day. It’s a real problem. I don’t support everything that happened during those riots, but I recognize the desire and the need to address and resolve that problem. Donald Trump lost the election and tried to undermine the American democracy, incited violence, and caused a riot by lying to his supporters. Innocent people died, the social cohesion of America was seriously degraded, and it was all for virtually nothing. I don’t support that. That group did do something stupid. But I think it’s important to have compassion for them, because they were lied to (and this was allowed for years) and they, like BLM protestors, probably believed they were doing important work. If trump wasn’t lying to them, they would have been attempting to save democracy. The insurrection would have gone down in history as an important, brave moment. But that’s not what was happening. It’ll be remembered as something so much worse. Just like BLM, bad rioters show up. That’s not necessarily a reflection of the cause. I try not to condemn a protest based on the damage that was done by bad actors. They’re always present. They’re sometimes placed by authorities to encourage people outside of the protest to demand that it ends and remove any support, patience, or tolerance. I see a clear case for battling systemic racism, but none at all for battling for Trump’s illegitimate second term.
  - ganoushoreilly 6y ago
    It's all subjective, both sides can argue they felt it was justified. Multiple friends and family had their businesses vandalized and destroyed. One in particular had over a million in damage between his two restaurants. He had to close them down and insurance denied because riots are not covered. I'm sure he would disagree that he was responsible for oppression and deserved to have his livelyhood, the livelyhood of his multiple employees, and his family destroyed because they saw things in one perspective. By your same accord you can't condemn the protest at the capital on the 6th, you have to condemn those that were idiots and caused damage like bad actors. Both groups felt they were in the right, both groups felt marginalized. You can't dictate how someone feels on either side. So you have to either condemn equally for the outcomes, or not. In this case people chose to condemn one and not the other. You're not going to convince me that battling "systemic racism" isn't the same as battling "a system designed to limit and inhibit your way of life because you're a republican or trump supporter" Take the recent incident in boulder, people were all to quick to blame it on a White Male Gun owner, and demand people have their guns taken away because these things happen. As a white male gun owner, wouldn't it be fair for you to feel constantly attacked and oppressed? It' doesn't matter if you think it's the same or not, oppression is oppression. When conservative news is shut down, when far leftist ideals are pushed and nuanced discussions shut down, it's easy to see where those that stormed the capital have a grievance. In the case of the boulder incident, it turns out the attacker has extremist views, bought the gun legally (because of failures in the process of vetting by the FBI) was already under investigation by the FBI, and ultimately had been planning an attack (to include a trump rally prior to covid). Yet the news paints this as a reason why Trump supporters or Gun enthusiasts are bad. Parler was an alternative site, you don't have to agree with it, but the fact is nothing posted there wasn't present on all the other major platforms, often times being much more represented on them. It was singled out and chastised because it was a "trump" supporter platform. Until you and by you I mean people who hold the stance you presented, accept and acknowledge the hypocrisy and ignorance of the one sided arguments, you're going to continue to create the thing you're so desperate to prevent. Angry, people that will turn to extremes because they're constantly being derided and chastised for their views and way of life. Capital protest was fine, Rioters breaking in was abhorrent. BLM protests were fine, Rioting, looting, and destruction was abhorrent. The two aren't different. The context of how the protest started is irrelevant. Parler, Facebook, Twitter, and whatever other platforms you use are no different. They are fine, calls to violence or illegal activities are abhorrent.
JKCalhoun 6y ago
> To commemorate MLK Jr. Day, the CTO of the large company at which I work, sent out an email advocating for more political violence to promote racial justice issues… And how has this email not leaked?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
lgleason 6y ago
That's because the CEO's, CTO's etc don't actually care about the principals they claim they support. It is all about power and bending the words to fit their narrative. Basically if their side loots, riots, burns down cities, brings guns and shoots people, storms the lawmakers chambers, come close to breaching the white house to the point of the president needing to be evacuated to a bunker, police stations and federal buildings etc. it is a mostly peaceful protest. But if a few un-armed larpers in viking costumes etc. walk into the capital it is an insurrection worthy of barbed wire fences and a troop buildup larger than many deployments to war zones.
krapp 6y ago
> To commemorate MLK Jr. Day, the CTO of the large company at which I work, sent out an email advocating for more political violence to promote racial justice issues, along with some circa-1960's quotes on the need for political violence. Is that actually what they did, or do they support BLM, and you equate support for BLM with support for political violence?
- chroem- 6y ago
  It was done through adding emphasis to certain portions of Dr. King's "Letter From Birmingham Jail". In bold font: > who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace
  - krapp 6y ago
    So to commemorate MLK day, your CTO sent out emails quoting MLK, a man known for his commitment to tolerance and nonviolent resistance, and you interpreted this as advocating political violence? It seems like a reach to me, but fair enough. Thank you for answering.
    - chroem- 6y ago
      He specifically highlighted the sections dealing with violence.
      - dyslexit 6y ago
        The part you're quoting has nothing to do with violence. He's saying most white moderates preferred an absence of tension with black people to an absence of equality. Unless there's something else you wanted to quote it seems like you're grossly misinterpreting what was said so you can call it "advocating political violence" and equate it to what was shared leading up.to the capitol hill riots.
        chroem- 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ganoushoreilly 6y ago

It's hypocrisy all around. Let us kill racism by splitting people up into groups. Lets relegate people to certain groups based on some sort of factor, hmm, maybe skin color? Yeah that's cool because that's not racist. It's the same as the lack of admittance that the Capital Riot and a Year of riots around the US were all horrible. One did billions in damage to the US for months, the other a few broken windows and doors. Yet we're supposed to be mad that one group did something stupid, but respect the other because, they had an emotional right to it. How about everyone that participated in rioting regardless of the cause, are morons that should be held accountable.

steve_adams_86 6y ago
The rioting that occurred for BLM is quite different from the insurrection. Black people in the USA have faced various degrees of oppression at individual and systemic levels for generations. There’s not just residue of that left in the country, but real substance still present from day to day. It’s a real problem. I don’t support everything that happened during those riots, but I recognize the desire and the need to address and resolve that problem. Donald Trump lost the election and tried to undermine the American democracy, incited violence, and caused a riot by lying to his supporters. Innocent people died, the social cohesion of America was seriously degraded, and it was all for virtually nothing. I don’t support that. That group did do something stupid. But I think it’s important to have compassion for them, because they were lied to (and this was allowed for years) and they, like BLM protestors, probably believed they were doing important work. If trump wasn’t lying to them, they would have been attempting to save democracy. The insurrection would have gone down in history as an important, brave moment. But that’s not what was happening. It’ll be remembered as something so much worse. Just like BLM, bad rioters show up. That’s not necessarily a reflection of the cause. I try not to condemn a protest based on the damage that was done by bad actors. They’re always present. They’re sometimes placed by authorities to encourage people outside of the protest to demand that it ends and remove any support, patience, or tolerance. I see a clear case for battling systemic racism, but none at all for battling for Trump’s illegitimate second term.
- ganoushoreilly 6y ago
  It's all subjective, both sides can argue they felt it was justified. Multiple friends and family had their businesses vandalized and destroyed. One in particular had over a million in damage between his two restaurants. He had to close them down and insurance denied because riots are not covered. I'm sure he would disagree that he was responsible for oppression and deserved to have his livelyhood, the livelyhood of his multiple employees, and his family destroyed because they saw things in one perspective. By your same accord you can't condemn the protest at the capital on the 6th, you have to condemn those that were idiots and caused damage like bad actors. Both groups felt they were in the right, both groups felt marginalized. You can't dictate how someone feels on either side. So you have to either condemn equally for the outcomes, or not. In this case people chose to condemn one and not the other. You're not going to convince me that battling "systemic racism" isn't the same as battling "a system designed to limit and inhibit your way of life because you're a republican or trump supporter" Take the recent incident in boulder, people were all to quick to blame it on a White Male Gun owner, and demand people have their guns taken away because these things happen. As a white male gun owner, wouldn't it be fair for you to feel constantly attacked and oppressed? It' doesn't matter if you think it's the same or not, oppression is oppression. When conservative news is shut down, when far leftist ideals are pushed and nuanced discussions shut down, it's easy to see where those that stormed the capital have a grievance. In the case of the boulder incident, it turns out the attacker has extremist views, bought the gun legally (because of failures in the process of vetting by the FBI) was already under investigation by the FBI, and ultimately had been planning an attack (to include a trump rally prior to covid). Yet the news paints this as a reason why Trump supporters or Gun enthusiasts are bad. Parler was an alternative site, you don't have to agree with it, but the fact is nothing posted there wasn't present on all the other major platforms, often times being much more represented on them. It was singled out and chastised because it was a "trump" supporter platform. Until you and by you I mean people who hold the stance you presented, accept and acknowledge the hypocrisy and ignorance of the one sided arguments, you're going to continue to create the thing you're so desperate to prevent. Angry, people that will turn to extremes because they're constantly being derided and chastised for their views and way of life. Capital protest was fine, Rioters breaking in was abhorrent. BLM protests were fine, Rioting, looting, and destruction was abhorrent. The two aren't different. The context of how the protest started is irrelevant. Parler, Facebook, Twitter, and whatever other platforms you use are no different. They are fine, calls to violence or illegal activities are abhorrent.

JKCalhoun 6y ago

> To commemorate MLK Jr. Day, the CTO of the large company at which I work, sent out an email advocating for more political violence to promote racial justice issues… And how has this email not leaked?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

lgleason 6y ago

That's because the CEO's, CTO's etc don't actually care about the principals they claim they support. It is all about power and bending the words to fit their narrative. Basically if their side loots, riots, burns down cities, brings guns and shoots people, storms the lawmakers chambers, come close to breaching the white house to the point of the president needing to be evacuated to a bunker, police stations and federal buildings etc. it is a mostly peaceful protest. But if a few un-armed larpers in viking costumes etc. walk into the capital it is an insurrection worthy of barbed wire fences and a troop buildup larger than many deployments to war zones.

krapp 6y ago

> To commemorate MLK Jr. Day, the CTO of the large company at which I work, sent out an email advocating for more political violence to promote racial justice issues, along with some circa-1960's quotes on the need for political violence. Is that actually what they did, or do they support BLM, and you equate support for BLM with support for political violence?

chroem- 6y ago
It was done through adding emphasis to certain portions of Dr. King's "Letter From Birmingham Jail". In bold font: > who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace
- krapp 6y ago
  So to commemorate MLK day, your CTO sent out emails quoting MLK, a man known for his commitment to tolerance and nonviolent resistance, and you interpreted this as advocating political violence? It seems like a reach to me, but fair enough. Thank you for answering.
  - chroem- 6y ago
    He specifically highlighted the sections dealing with violence.
    - dyslexit 6y ago
      The part you're quoting has nothing to do with violence. He's saying most white moderates preferred an absence of tension with black people to an absence of equality. Unless there's something else you wanted to quote it seems like you're grossly misinterpreting what was said so you can call it "advocating political violence" and equate it to what was shared leading up.to the capitol hill riots.
      - chroem- 6y ago