However I find myself being disagreed with quite often, mostly for not advocating or cheering violence, “by any means possible” change, or revolutionary tactics. It would seem that I’m not viewed as authentically holding my view unless I advocate extreme, violent, or radical action to accomplish it.

Those seem like two different things to me.

Edit: TO COMMUNISTS, ANARCHISTS, OR ANYONE ELSE CALLING FOR THE OVERTHROW OF SOCIETY

THIS OBVIOUSLY ISN’T MEANT FOR YOU.

  • axont [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I think perhaps you should read more of what Dr. King actually advocated for and said. He didn’t endorse violence, but he didn’t condemn it either. He typically didn’t come from it from this moralizing angle either, most of his emphasis was his belief that violence was first and foremost a poor tactic, but at the same time he understood why violence happens. You’ve probably heard his 1967 statement “a riot is the language of the unheard.”

    • Muad'Dibber@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      We should also be wary here tho, MLK did advocate for pacifism for all but the last few months of his life, and he received many a well-deserved roasting from revolutionaries like Malcolm X, and Kwame Ture.

      Everyone should especially listen to Malcolm X - Message to the grassroots for a thorough critique of King’s nonviolent advocacy, and him being a sellout to petty-bourgeois white liberals for most of his career.

      • daltotron
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        5 months ago

        MLK did advocate for pacifism for all but the last few months of his life

        I mean this is sort of reframed with the context that he was assassinated for making that turn away from pacifism. I’m not saying that it was the wrong decision even given the hindsight we have now, but it does recontextualize it.