This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
King's era was, I would argue, of a considerably different social climate than today, and to suggest his aim (or the SCLC's aim at the time) was simply trying to "up" black representation (and you make it sound as if black representation was both fine at the time and that this was the only problem--as opposed to, for example, segregated schools, water fountains, churches, lunch counters, and a general caste system with blacks at the very bottom simply because they were black). The mid century US wasn't the same as it had been 100 years earlier, but it was pretty damn racist, particularly where I am from, the deep south.
Anyway possibly you weren't implying what I inferred from your quick gloss of MLK, but that certainly jarred.
It wasn't what I implied, so you shouldn't claim that it was. MLK was an antiwhite racist. If he opposed any antiblack racism that existed then too, doesn't change the fact that he was an antiwhite racist.
Also, MLK assumed all disparities were due to discrimination. There is also MLK's immoral personal conduct. https://chroniclesmagazine.org/web/the-sordid-legacy-of-dr-king/
Well, establishing how much racist against blacks that society really was and how far "seperate but equal" worked in practice would be an interesting question. My view is that it was anti-black and the so called civil right movement opposed that but they exaggerated how much the problem was pervasive with their assumptions of all disparities due to racism and their goal and what they tried to do and did succeed was to change the system into pro black and anti-white. The aspects of the woke agenda was there with them all along. One must also not forget all the riots and violence too.
Fundamentally all progressive "civil rights" movements have been a scam precisely due to this fact of not seeking an honorable end. The general scam about them being about opposing racism and sexism (or misogyny). The same applies with feminism and the other isms, too.
Does this imply that such movements can never have any legitimate grievances? No.They can have them at the start, but as they win, that doesn't apply. And even from the start there is a distortion of history and seeking extreme ends.
If these movements don't succeed in behaving in a sufficiently restrained manner, they should be condemned for that. It has been long overdue, and if it was more pervasive we wouldn't have the excesses in the directions that the so called civil rights movement wanted.
The leftist activist climate has a lot of continuity. Things aren't as different as it might seem.
I did say it was my inference, but okay. I see. Well, I disagree with almost all of what you're saying here so I don't feel I'm erring too much in dismissing your other conclusions.
Do you have a valid reason to disagree, or is it just due to partisan bias in favor of progressive movements, no matter how extreme? There is a great continuity in rhetoric. MLK's own rhetoric and of his movement was about giving blacks special treatment in their favor. He was for reparations.
His quote:
What I said about his personal conduct is backed up and you can find the evidence of his democratic socialist biographer in the link I posted.
Quoting from that:
https://chroniclesmagazine.org/web/the-sordid-legacy-of-dr-king/
You can also find in addition to that link even leftists arguing how MLK supported reparations, which he did. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-10-27-mn-58503-story.html
We know that the civil rights act did not satisfy MLK who kept pushing for reparations and the mantra of USA as a racist country that must pay back, and also he kept seeking more representation for blacks, even where they were not discirminated for their race. Then he died, and the rest of this movement, including key players brought things in the direction things has been brought towards so the movement remained and can be judged.
https://www.inquirer.com/news/martin-luther-king-jr-reparations-ados-i-have-a-dream-20200118.html https://www.christiantoday.com/article/martin.luther.king.jr.and.the.question.of.reparations/137794.htm https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2016/02/would-mlk-support-reparations-today/625124/
If you look at feminism, you will find the extremism in the radicals of decades before too. And so on, and so forth.
Can you clarify what your thesis is exactly? That those progressive movements have been antiracist? That is falsified by what they have been agitating towards and what they have done. We live in a world of double standards and one sided hatred in the pro progressive direction and without even allowing representation for the identity interests of the target groups. Where people are blamed for oppressing those who they don't oppress, while the systemic injustice is the other way around.
And of course the marxist movement that there was also a lot of crossover with the other progressive movements itself has had a horrible track record in showing restraint and attaining actual justice.
King's affairs were well-documented, though the "watching a rape and laughing" bit is new to me and I'd probably want a bit more in the way of substantiation. Regardless, I am not holding up MLK as a bastion of morality and did not suggest that I was. What I am suggesting is that hindsight is easier than foresight, and to attribute as intention the many missteps of both the civil rights and feminist movements is to perceive a genie that isn't there. Law of unintended consequences.
I don't have a "partisan bias in favor of progressive movements, no matter how extreme." I'm not sure where that's coming from; it's possible you're being slightly over defensive.
I would suggest it's not wildly irrational to sympathize with the ostensible and stated desires of MLK's version of the civil rights movement (which may seem like fluff to the cynical, but MLK was a preacher) while simultaneously acknowledging the considerable shortcomings of, say, BLM. The same with 1st wave feminism and its descendant distortions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link