zlacker

[parent] [thread] 9 comments
1. devalg+(OP)[view] [source] 2020-06-01 17:23:53
>The MLK quote is trotted out pretty often, but "a riot is the language of the unheard".

Trotted out by ignorant woke dummies. In his 1967 Stanford speech MLK also says: "Let me say as I've always said and I will always continue to say, that riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. I'm still convinced that nonviolence is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and justice."

Using MLK to defend or advocate violence is astonishingly ahistoric.

replies(3): >>mmastr+T2 >>applef+Vv >>jahaja+1j1
2. mmastr+T2[view] [source] 2020-06-01 17:37:12
>>devalg+(OP)
You cherry-picked just the MLK quote and added an ad-hominem which isn't a very productive argument.
replies(2): >>lliama+Ud >>downer+Or
◧◩
3. lliama+Ud[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-01 18:28:40
>>mmastr+T2
Calling someone names is not an ad-hominem. Making accusations about a person's character can be a valid inference based on their behavior. What makes an ad-hominem is thinking that a person's character (or other attributes) has any bearing on the correctness of their argument.

For example:

"X is a bad person, therefore their argument is invalid" is an ad-hominem. Bad people can still make valid arguments.

"X's argument is both invalid and in bad faith, therefore they are a bad person" is a logical inference.

replies(1): >>vkou+3U
◧◩
4. downer+Or[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-01 19:40:02
>>mmastr+T2
He literally added the context of the quote, without which MLK's views were misrepresented.
5. applef+Vv[view] [source] 2020-06-01 20:02:21
>>devalg+(OP)
the post you're replying too doesn't imply he advocated riots; if the quote is accurate (I'm no historian) it's simply attributing causality.
replies(1): >>devalg+Wy
◧◩
6. devalg+Wy[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-01 20:16:18
>>applef+Vv
I'm explicitly talking about the people who are using the MLK quote to DEFEND the riots not explain them. If they actually supported the thesis of what MLK was saying they would post the entire quote with the relevant condemnation of riots, some are doing that but many aren't.
replies(1): >>jessau+n51
◧◩◪
7. vkou+3U[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-01 22:07:31
>>lliama+Ud
> Calling someone names is not an ad-hominem

It's not, but it also has no place on HN.

replies(1): >>afiori+Nb1
◧◩◪
8. jessau+n51[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-01 23:21:32
>>devalg+Wy
No one is doing that.
◧◩◪◨
9. afiori+Nb1[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-02 00:10:02
>>vkou+3U
The insult was not directed at the commenter, rather to a group of people that popularized the quote.

It is the difference between "If you believe X then your school must have had brain-dead teachers" and "If you believe X you are brain-dead"

10. jahaja+1j1[view] [source] 2020-06-02 01:12:35
>>devalg+(OP)
It's different to dislike it from a tactical perspective and to morally condemn it.

"They asked if our own nation wasn’t using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government."

[go to top]