Dont you ever dare accuse me of dimishing MLKs legacy.I don't know why you're making so many things up about what I've said. I didn't say anything about what kind of citizens POC are or what rights POC have. I don't know why you're acting like I'm denying the racial injustice that's been going on for centuries when I've acknowledged it in every one of my responses. I don't know why you're still pretending I think you owe bigots something when I've explicitly pointed out that I don't. I don't know why you're willing to diminish MLK Jr's legacy of pushing progress forward just because you don't like the implication that his strategy had merit. I don't know why you're talking about doing things "in good faith" or acting like I've said it's your job to do any of this when I've deliberately specified the contrary.
I appreciate that you're passionate enough to write this series of speeches about injustice but you're directing this one at an imaginary person, and I'm getting tired of being constantly strawmanned or vilified for presupposed crimes of character. Out of all the things you just addressed, only one of them was one of my actual points, and that was that MLK Jr was good for civil rights, which you're absurdly unwilling to grant. The rest were arguments against positions I've either said nothing about or already made clear I agree with you on. You've completely neglected to engage with my actual argument, that effective tactics do not necessarily align with fair ones.
We have enough enemies already, don't we? Do we need to be inventing new ones out of every disagreement among each other? Do we need to make up a bunch of fake points and arguments so we can pat ourselves on the back for winning them instead of engaging any of the difficult problems? That isn't healthy behavior.
I'll try to lay this out as clearly as I can one final time. All the evidence on the topic that I am aware of points to the conclusions that 1 - some white supremacists have deconverted due to being shown compassion, and 2 - people are predisposed to conservative stances when they feel threatened and liberal ones when they don't. Neither of these points have anything at all to do with what anyone deserves or whose responsibility it is to do anything, neither of them advocate any blanket policy about what is most effective in every scenario, and I am not using either of them to suggest that the issue is settled and not worth further discussion about.
The one specific thing which I propose is that when we find ourselves familiar on an individual, personal scale with a person with a bigoted viewpoint, someone that isn't already very hostile to us, it would more likely be helpful to try reasoning with them in a nonthreatening manner than to make them feel threatened if the goal is to change their mind. You might not feel like doing that, and that's valid. You might have priorities other than changing their mind, and that's valid too. What isn't valid is the idea that nonthreatening reasoning is completely useless and has no place in the fight against bigotry. I want equality and in order to get there we need to at least be rational about which methods are effective for getting there. The evidence, while there's much less than I'd prefer, suggests that conversation is still the most useful legal way in some contexts to do it, which is why I don't like people aggressively discrediting it without reason. That's all.
Thats just insulting. And stop the buzzwords, that leads nowhere
And I need you to see excelsiorlef s screencaps so you understand you're caping for the WRONG guy here. He's not even doing what you claim is the solution. like AT ALL.
Ill give you a response once I finish reading, but youre way off about this.
