3 ms·

> I think the exact opposite. I think if you’re cherry picking pieces of thought from a figure and ignoring the bits you don’t like then you’re just using them

> I think the exact opposite. I think if you’re cherry picking pieces of thought from a figure and ignoring the bits you don’t like then you’re just using them as a prop. I'm not using anybody as a prop, nor am I ignoring anything. If you want to talk about King's positions regarding socialism, I'll tell you why I disagree with them. If you want to talk about his position regarding color-blindness, I'll tell you why I think it's the single most important notion to arise from the civil rights movement. This doesn't "prove your point" that I'm somehow erasing the other positions he held or using him as a prop, I simply don't agree with all of his positions. You seem to be of the opinion that there is some sort of contradiction inherent in that, whereas the position of color-blindness actually has nothing to do with socialism. In fact, the most prominent advocates of socialism today specifically advocate AGAINST color-blindness. > What, so the rest of what he said wasn’t ideas? Or that the rest of them have less value because someone said so? If so, who decides which ideas are the real ones to be remembered? You? Me? Our political chattering classes? This is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Of course the rest of what he said were ideas, the point is that arguments/positions aren't bundled together arbitrarily simply because you would like them to be. If I say "the sky appears blue, I think it has something to do with the way light is scattered through the atmosphere, and that probably means there is a god," hopefully you understand that I've actually made 3 arguments, 2 of which you might agree with. Agreeing that the sky appears blue doesn't mean you have to agree that there is a god. Regarding which have more or less value...you're free to venerate whichever ideas of Dr. King you'd like to, nobody is stopping you. There is no political chattering classes demanding that you do anything regarding which positions of his you found compelling.

ashtonkem 5y ago
> You seem to be of the opinion that there is some sort of contradiction inherent in that, whereas the position of color-blindness actually has nothing to do with socialism. Please point where I said that. I think you made that up out of whole cloth. > Of course the rest of what he said were ideas, the point is that arguments/positions aren't bundled together arbitrarily simply because you would like them to be. They’re bundled together because they’re all part of one man’s body of work. Specifically the body of work for a man whose holiday were commemorating today. So yes, everything he said and did is bundled together when we are discussing him, and if we cherry pick what he said and did when we’re discussing his work, then we’re not being honest to him and history. Literally my entire point is that his legacy and quotes are cherry picked in a suspicious way when we discuss him. If we’re discussing color blindness in the abstract unrelated to MLK, then sure, you’d be right. But we aren’t, and it’s incredibly clear that my original point had everything to do with MLK specifically, not color blindness in the abstract. > Agreeing that the sky appears blue doesn't mean you have to agree that there is a god. Please point out where I said that you were obligated to agree with everything thing King said because you agree with him on one thing. I’ll wait.
- ralusek 5y ago
  If your point is that by celebrating him today we're celebrating the entirety of his work, please consider a day like Presidents day. We celebrate Washington's birthday despite him having been a slave owner. If you think that it's impossible to compartmentalize people, so be it. If you think that the reason we venerate MLK is in part due to his contributions to socialism, and that's what he means to you, so be it. I'm capable of compartmentalizing, and the reason I choose to venerate Dr. King on this day are for his contributions towards moving us towards liberalism and color-blindness. You seem to think that means that I'm "using him as a prop," whereas I simply find him to be an extremely important contribution to the advancement of civil rights, and feel entitled to celebrate that without having to celebrate the entirety of his beliefs.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    > If your point is that by celebrating him today we're celebrating the entirety of his work, please consider a day like Presidents day. It's genuinely really funny that you thought that this would be a rebuttal. Based on this entire conversation, what do you think my opinion about President's Day is? I'll give you two guesses, first doesn't count. > We celebrate Washington's birthday despite him having been a slave owner. If you think that it's impossible to compartmentalize people, so be it. I think Washington is an even easier case to argue here than MLK. This isn't a simple case of not agreeing with every aspect of someone's entire body of work. This is a case of a man waxing poetic about freedom and the rights of man while at the same time engaging in crimes against humanity by buying and selling human beings as property. This fact isn't merely inconvenient, it bathes his life's work in a hypocrisy that is impossible to ignore. Personally I wish we didn't celebrate his birthday. I think in general it's a bad idea to put people on pedestals for a variety of reasons, including if they turn out to be monsters in some ways. For Washington this specifically puts us all in the invidious position of explaining why we're venerating a man who could look another human being in the eyes and then sell them off like property. > If you think that the reason we venerate MLK is in part due to his contributions to socialism, and that's what he means to you, so be it. I'm split on whether this is fantastically bad reading comprehension on your part, or a bad faith interpretation of what I've said. It's 50/50 for me. Because at no point did I indicate that MLK even made a contribution to socialism, or even that I thought he was a socialist. All of that is entirely a fabrication on your part, completely unsupported by what I said. My entire point is that I find it a bit sus that after MLK's death people only ever seem to engage with one very specific aspect of MLK's work and legacy, and it's I think the part that is selected is politically convenient for those in power. That's it. That's my entire point. > feel entitled to celebrate that without having to celebrate the entirety of his beliefs. Again, I never said you had to agree with everything that he said. You've made that up to get angry at me about.

ashtonkem 5y ago

> You seem to be of the opinion that there is some sort of contradiction inherent in that, whereas the position of color-blindness actually has nothing to do with socialism. Please point where I said that. I think you made that up out of whole cloth. > Of course the rest of what he said were ideas, the point is that arguments/positions aren't bundled together arbitrarily simply because you would like them to be. They’re bundled together because they’re all part of one man’s body of work. Specifically the body of work for a man whose holiday were commemorating today. So yes, everything he said and did is bundled together when we are discussing him, and if we cherry pick what he said and did when we’re discussing his work, then we’re not being honest to him and history. Literally my entire point is that his legacy and quotes are cherry picked in a suspicious way when we discuss him. If we’re discussing color blindness in the abstract unrelated to MLK, then sure, you’d be right. But we aren’t, and it’s incredibly clear that my original point had everything to do with MLK specifically, not color blindness in the abstract. > Agreeing that the sky appears blue doesn't mean you have to agree that there is a god. Please point out where I said that you were obligated to agree with everything thing King said because you agree with him on one thing. I’ll wait.

ralusek 5y ago
If your point is that by celebrating him today we're celebrating the entirety of his work, please consider a day like Presidents day. We celebrate Washington's birthday despite him having been a slave owner. If you think that it's impossible to compartmentalize people, so be it. If you think that the reason we venerate MLK is in part due to his contributions to socialism, and that's what he means to you, so be it. I'm capable of compartmentalizing, and the reason I choose to venerate Dr. King on this day are for his contributions towards moving us towards liberalism and color-blindness. You seem to think that means that I'm "using him as a prop," whereas I simply find him to be an extremely important contribution to the advancement of civil rights, and feel entitled to celebrate that without having to celebrate the entirety of his beliefs.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  > If your point is that by celebrating him today we're celebrating the entirety of his work, please consider a day like Presidents day. It's genuinely really funny that you thought that this would be a rebuttal. Based on this entire conversation, what do you think my opinion about President's Day is? I'll give you two guesses, first doesn't count. > We celebrate Washington's birthday despite him having been a slave owner. If you think that it's impossible to compartmentalize people, so be it. I think Washington is an even easier case to argue here than MLK. This isn't a simple case of not agreeing with every aspect of someone's entire body of work. This is a case of a man waxing poetic about freedom and the rights of man while at the same time engaging in crimes against humanity by buying and selling human beings as property. This fact isn't merely inconvenient, it bathes his life's work in a hypocrisy that is impossible to ignore. Personally I wish we didn't celebrate his birthday. I think in general it's a bad idea to put people on pedestals for a variety of reasons, including if they turn out to be monsters in some ways. For Washington this specifically puts us all in the invidious position of explaining why we're venerating a man who could look another human being in the eyes and then sell them off like property. > If you think that the reason we venerate MLK is in part due to his contributions to socialism, and that's what he means to you, so be it. I'm split on whether this is fantastically bad reading comprehension on your part, or a bad faith interpretation of what I've said. It's 50/50 for me. Because at no point did I indicate that MLK even made a contribution to socialism, or even that I thought he was a socialist. All of that is entirely a fabrication on your part, completely unsupported by what I said. My entire point is that I find it a bit sus that after MLK's death people only ever seem to engage with one very specific aspect of MLK's work and legacy, and it's I think the part that is selected is politically convenient for those in power. That's it. That's my entire point. > feel entitled to celebrate that without having to celebrate the entirety of his beliefs. Again, I never said you had to agree with everything that he said. You've made that up to get angry at me about.