> It's genuinely really funny that you thought that this would be a rebuttal I'm illustrating the examples under which people can be celebrated without celebra

> It's genuinely really funny that you thought that this would be a rebuttal I'm illustrating the examples under which people can be celebrated without celebrating the entirety of their person, understanding full well that you personally find this to be impossible or somehow hypocritical. Gandhi slept with underage girls and was a racist. MLK was cheating on his wife when he was killed. JFK frequently cheated on his wife, and his sister was lobotomized. The example of Presidents day is simply to illustrate that many (most) people are entirely capable of celebrating people as a token of a certain set of beliefs/virtues/behaviors that exists independently the of the whole historical person. I don't care who you celebrate or why, but you cannot go around inferring that people are somehow ignorant or hypocritical simply for venerating people in a differ manner than you do...particularly when you appear to be in the minority in this regard. > 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. And MY entire point is that this is very often how most people celebrate the legacy of most figures.