3 ms·

The other more effective, more liberal option is persuasion. This is something MLK understood.

ParetoOptimal 3y ago
You know MLK was at the diner sit-in im referring to right? He doesn't meet your definition of liberal. Furthermore he directly speaks against your liberal option: > First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham....
- homefree 3y ago
  Progressives love to quote that one letter, but it's an outlier from the more universalist principles he repeatedly said in everything else he wrote and spoke (though people are complicated and can simultaneously hold conflicting views or change their views over time). Non-violent civil disobedience can obviously be good (Rosa Parks, protest walks, etc.), but when it becomes shouting down others so they can't speak it's crossed into something illiberal and bad. The ability for people who deeply disagree to speak and engage in a high level of discourse is how classical liberalism works. Often people hold deeply held beliefs, and often those beliefs are wrong - if persuasion is not on the table you don't improve your society - you just descend into political violence. Talking to people you deeply disagree with (we're doing that now!) is a virtuous thing and it's something MLK did repeatedly with universalist principles that harkened back to the founding fathers and the rights shared by every individual, it's something both MLK and the founding fathers understood.
  - lostmsu 3y ago
    > in everything else he wrote and spoke Can you quote anything that would directly contradict the above quote?

You know MLK was at the diner sit-in im referring to right? He doesn't meet your definition of liberal. Furthermore he directly speaks against your liberal option: > First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham....

homefree 3y ago
Progressives love to quote that one letter, but it's an outlier from the more universalist principles he repeatedly said in everything else he wrote and spoke (though people are complicated and can simultaneously hold conflicting views or change their views over time). Non-violent civil disobedience can obviously be good (Rosa Parks, protest walks, etc.), but when it becomes shouting down others so they can't speak it's crossed into something illiberal and bad. The ability for people who deeply disagree to speak and engage in a high level of discourse is how classical liberalism works. Often people hold deeply held beliefs, and often those beliefs are wrong - if persuasion is not on the table you don't improve your society - you just descend into political violence. Talking to people you deeply disagree with (we're doing that now!) is a virtuous thing and it's something MLK did repeatedly with universalist principles that harkened back to the founding fathers and the rights shared by every individual, it's something both MLK and the founding fathers understood.
- lostmsu 3y ago
  > in everything else he wrote and spoke Can you quote anything that would directly contradict the above quote?