7 ms·

Speech made in April, 1968, assassinated on June 5, 1968. Wild.

bamboozled 1y ago
Tragic, what a waste.
ethbr1 1y ago
>> Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land! [April 3, 1968 in Memphis, Tennessee] Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated on April 4, 1968. So perhaps a better excerpt in light of recent events would be >> And another reason that I'm happy to live in [the second half of the 20th century] is that we have been forced to a point where we are going to have to grapple with the problems that men have been trying to grapple with through history, but the demands didn't force them to do it. Survival demands that we grapple with them. Men, for years now, have been talking about war and peace. But now, no longer can they just talk about it. It is no longer a choice between violence and nonviolence in this world; it's nonviolence or nonexistence. That is where we are today.
- yakz 1y ago
  It turns out, at least so far, we can still choose violence.
  - ethbr1 1y ago
    His point was that once the physical power individuals/governments hold exceeds a threshold, a pluralistic society cannot coexist with violence being an acceptable option. In the context of the 1960s, governments and nuclear weapons. But more broadly the same holds true for individuals. Either we learn to live together despite our differences, or we use our newfound great power to annihilate each other.
    - Retric 1y ago
      Society can be shockingly resilient to personal violence especially if it’s primarily people at the top in terms of status, wealth, or political power are regularly getting assassinated. Recently gangs have been shockingly stable despite relentless violence but historically duals between gentlemen etc where quite common. By historical standards we’re living is a near paradise of non violence and that’s worth persevering at significant cost.
    - denkmoon 1y ago
      It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh. https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/douglasmacarthurradiojapanesesurrenderceremony.htm https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/douglasmacarthurra...
    - PicassoCTs 1y ago
      [dead]
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - giardini 1y ago
      ethbr1 says "...or we use our newfound great power to annihilate each other." That isn't possible without bio-warfare. I sometimes hear people foolishly speak of a shooting "race war" in the USA but always remind them that the active phase of such an event would last about 15 minutes.
      - ethbr1 1y ago
        Distributed mass hunting rifle shots on high voltage transformers. Unguarded. Scattered around the country. Any oil leaks potentially destroy them. Manufacturing backlogs of multiple years. https://www.energy.gov/oe/addressing-security-and-reliability-concerns-large-power-transformers https://www.energy.gov/oe/addressing-security-and-reliabilit... The only thing that's kept domestic terrorism to a minimum is that anyone smart enough to do it well has better economic opportunities.
  - dfghjkl1 1y ago
    I think when it becomes normal for 10% or more of the citizens of a country to say they wouldn’t be upset if some member of the opposing political party were to die or when it becomes normal for that portion of the people to make fun or celebrate the death of someone from an opposing party or their murderer, everyone needs to take a step back regardless of which side you’re on and say “Why?” Because these people are not murderers or accomplices, and they are generally good people. These aren’t people that would lynch anyone or burn a cross in someone’s yard. It’s awful that anyone dies. Let’s not escalate this on either side. We don’t need another Hitler, and we don’t need a French Revolution either. We just need people that stop trying to outdo each other.
    - lotsofpulp 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - frumplestlatz 1y ago
        [flagged]
        bccdee 1y ago
        Who are "we," and what is it that "you're" not putting up with? The last act of violence comparable to this (against a Republican, that is—two Minnesota Democrats were shot in June¹) was the 2024 attempt on Trump's life, where the shooter was a registered Republican who espoused anti-immigrant sentiments on social media². I give it better than even odds that the Kirk shooter, if they have any coherent political views at all, is right of centre. That's where all the violent radicalization is happening right now. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_shootings_of_Minnesota_legislators https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_shootings_of_Minnesota_le... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Matthew_Crooks#Political_activities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Matthew_Crooks#Politica...
        frumplestlatz 1y ago
        [flagged]
  - goshdangit 1y ago
    [dead]
  - fawkesalbus 1y ago
    [dead]
    - ath3nd 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - JPKab 1y ago
        He was shot with a bolt action .30-06 hunting rifle. There has never been a proposed ban on these weapons. Your comment is essentially saying he deserved it, and that you see some form of cosmic justice here. Meanwhile, I've been reminded by your comment that people like you will celebrate the deaths of people they disagree with politically, which makes me less likely to support gun control. With neighbors like you, I'm going to hang onto them. The irony of people like you is your perceived moral superiority warps you into being a bad person.
        bigyabai 1y ago
        The parent comment isn't celebrating his death. They did however cut off the quote, so I will render it in full here: "I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational." The fact that Charlie Kirk was murdered is reprehensible and sets an ill precedent for democracy. That is plainly apparent to anyone with a vested interest in peaceful political discourse. Washington DC has come together across the aisle to condemn this violence. The legacy Kirk leaves behind isn't incorrect or worth discarding; some violence is a part of any collective society. But at what point does the deal stop being prudent? How many politicians, schoolkids and religious groups have to be shot up before we reassess our laws? If we never stop, then the cycle is always waiting to start up again. The tinderbox can be lit for any reason, and give any administration just cause for martial law and "emergency powers" abuse.
        ath3nd 1y ago
        [flagged]
- ruined 1y ago
  this is the complete transcript of that excerpted speech, often titled "I've Been to the Mountaintop" https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkivebeentothemountaintop.htm https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkivebeentothemou...
- pyuser583 1y ago
  I don't know how to properly apply that to the situation in Ukraine.

Tragic, what a waste.

>> Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land! [April 3, 1968 in Memphis, Tennessee] Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated on April 4, 1968. So perhaps a better excerpt in light of recent events would be >> And another reason that I'm happy to live in [the second half of the 20th century] is that we have been forced to a point where we are going to have to grapple with the problems that men have been trying to grapple with through history, but the demands didn't force them to do it. Survival demands that we grapple with them. Men, for years now, have been talking about war and peace. But now, no longer can they just talk about it. It is no longer a choice between violence and nonviolence in this world; it's nonviolence or nonexistence. That is where we are today.

yakz 1y ago
It turns out, at least so far, we can still choose violence.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  His point was that once the physical power individuals/governments hold exceeds a threshold, a pluralistic society cannot coexist with violence being an acceptable option. In the context of the 1960s, governments and nuclear weapons. But more broadly the same holds true for individuals. Either we learn to live together despite our differences, or we use our newfound great power to annihilate each other.
  - Retric 1y ago
    Society can be shockingly resilient to personal violence especially if it’s primarily people at the top in terms of status, wealth, or political power are regularly getting assassinated. Recently gangs have been shockingly stable despite relentless violence but historically duals between gentlemen etc where quite common. By historical standards we’re living is a near paradise of non violence and that’s worth persevering at significant cost.
  - denkmoon 1y ago
    It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh. https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/douglasmacarthurradiojapanesesurrenderceremony.htm https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/douglasmacarthurra...
  - PicassoCTs 1y ago
    [dead]
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - giardini 1y ago
    ethbr1 says "...or we use our newfound great power to annihilate each other." That isn't possible without bio-warfare. I sometimes hear people foolishly speak of a shooting "race war" in the USA but always remind them that the active phase of such an event would last about 15 minutes.
    - ethbr1 1y ago
      Distributed mass hunting rifle shots on high voltage transformers. Unguarded. Scattered around the country. Any oil leaks potentially destroy them. Manufacturing backlogs of multiple years. https://www.energy.gov/oe/addressing-security-and-reliability-concerns-large-power-transformers https://www.energy.gov/oe/addressing-security-and-reliabilit... The only thing that's kept domestic terrorism to a minimum is that anyone smart enough to do it well has better economic opportunities.
- dfghjkl1 1y ago
  I think when it becomes normal for 10% or more of the citizens of a country to say they wouldn’t be upset if some member of the opposing political party were to die or when it becomes normal for that portion of the people to make fun or celebrate the death of someone from an opposing party or their murderer, everyone needs to take a step back regardless of which side you’re on and say “Why?” Because these people are not murderers or accomplices, and they are generally good people. These aren’t people that would lynch anyone or burn a cross in someone’s yard. It’s awful that anyone dies. Let’s not escalate this on either side. We don’t need another Hitler, and we don’t need a French Revolution either. We just need people that stop trying to outdo each other.
  - lotsofpulp 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - frumplestlatz 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - bccdee 1y ago
        Who are "we," and what is it that "you're" not putting up with? The last act of violence comparable to this (against a Republican, that is—two Minnesota Democrats were shot in June¹) was the 2024 attempt on Trump's life, where the shooter was a registered Republican who espoused anti-immigrant sentiments on social media². I give it better than even odds that the Kirk shooter, if they have any coherent political views at all, is right of centre. That's where all the violent radicalization is happening right now. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_shootings_of_Minnesota_legislators https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_shootings_of_Minnesota_le... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Matthew_Crooks#Political_activities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Matthew_Crooks#Politica...
        frumplestlatz 1y ago
        [flagged]
- goshdangit 1y ago
  [dead]
- fawkesalbus 1y ago
  [dead]
  - ath3nd 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - JPKab 1y ago
      He was shot with a bolt action .30-06 hunting rifle. There has never been a proposed ban on these weapons. Your comment is essentially saying he deserved it, and that you see some form of cosmic justice here. Meanwhile, I've been reminded by your comment that people like you will celebrate the deaths of people they disagree with politically, which makes me less likely to support gun control. With neighbors like you, I'm going to hang onto them. The irony of people like you is your perceived moral superiority warps you into being a bad person.
      - bigyabai 1y ago
        The parent comment isn't celebrating his death. They did however cut off the quote, so I will render it in full here: "I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational." The fact that Charlie Kirk was murdered is reprehensible and sets an ill precedent for democracy. That is plainly apparent to anyone with a vested interest in peaceful political discourse. Washington DC has come together across the aisle to condemn this violence. The legacy Kirk leaves behind isn't incorrect or worth discarding; some violence is a part of any collective society. But at what point does the deal stop being prudent? How many politicians, schoolkids and religious groups have to be shot up before we reassess our laws? If we never stop, then the cycle is always waiting to start up again. The tinderbox can be lit for any reason, and give any administration just cause for martial law and "emergency powers" abuse.
      - ath3nd 1y ago
        [flagged]
ruined 1y ago
this is the complete transcript of that excerpted speech, often titled "I've Been to the Mountaintop" https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkivebeentothemountaintop.htm https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkivebeentothemou...
pyuser583 1y ago
I don't know how to properly apply that to the situation in Ukraine.