• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Hypocrisy of Republicans on MLK Day

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Atreus21 said:
Whereas progressives endorse and have implemented deliberate and systemic racism, and give it the name affirmative action.

If we rely on King's standard of judging men by the content of their character and not the color of their skin, then it stands to reason he would be as displeased with democrats as he would republicans.
Click to expand...

No, he absolutely would not be as displeased with Democrats as he would Republicans. Please don't equivocate.

MLK believed that improving racial equality involved redistributing power and money in favor of the less fortunate. Republicans oppose this.

MLK preferred peaceful protest, but understood why people riot and that the solution was to fix the social issues that led them to riot. Republicans are about order for order's sake.

MLK objected to whites who argue that black people should protest in a "more convenient season." Republicans are the ones telling black people that they shouldn't kneel at football games (or on the streets, or...)

MLK railed against excessive materialism and militarism. Republicans love materialism and militarism.

Modern Republicans are curiously reluctant to condemn racist attacks, or a President who suggests there are "very nice people" among white supremacists. And let's not forget: KKK members and neo-Nazis love Trump.

And lastly: the bill to make MLK Day a holiday was primarily opposed by Republicans; all the currently sitting politicians who voted against it are Republican. (I suspect he'd have been too modest to want a day for himself, but nonetheless)

I'm sure MLK would have issues with modern Democrats, but based on the issues and voting records, there's no way in hell he'd say they were as bad as Republicans.
 
Commodus said:
No, he absolutely would not be as displeased with Democrats as he would Republicans. Please don't equivocate.

MLK believed that improving racial equality involved redistributing power and money in favor of the less fortunate. Republicans oppose this.

MLK preferred peaceful protest, but understood why people riot and that the solution was to fix the social issues that led them to riot. Republicans are about order for order's sake.

MLK objected to whites who argue that black people should protest in a "more convenient season." Republicans are the ones telling black people that they shouldn't kneel at football games (or on the streets, or...)

MLK railed against excessive materialism and militarism. Republicans love materialism and militarism.

Modern Republicans are curiously reluctant to condemn racist attacks, or a President who suggests there are "very nice people" among white supremacists. And let's not forget: KKK members and neo-Nazis love Trump.

And lastly: the bill to make MLK Day a holiday was primarily opposed by Republicans; all the currently sitting politicians who voted against it are Republican. (I suspect he'd have been too modest to want a day for himself, but nonetheless)

I'm sure MLK would have issues with modern Democrats, but based on the issues and voting records, there's no way in hell he'd say they were as bad as Republicans.
Click to expand...

Something tells me MLK would object to the weaponization of race that has occurred in leftist circles. He would object to the fact that democrats thrive in environments of racial strife and seem determined to sustain it. This is evident in silly theories like unconscious bias and white privilege, where white people are racist even though they've done nothing racist. I suspect he'd also have nagging doubts about Democrats' increasing viciousness towards Christianity in particular, which was the one allegiance we know he definitely had.
 
Stop doubling down on your feigned fucktardery... And STOP trying to paint Democrats with your collection of racist brushes. You are using the wrong paint...
 
Atreus21 said:
I suspect he'd also have nagging doubts about Democrats' increasing viciousness towards Christianity in particular, which was the one allegiance we know he definitely had.
Click to expand...
The religious fanatics deserve to have their shenanigans exposed while most bona fide Christians have lost their flavor just as Christ admonished them against.

Just to recap: Bona Fide Christians have oil in their lamps and religious fanatics have no oil in their lamps. Kind of hard for a lamp to shine a light on a hill in the darkness when it doesn't have the means to do so.
 
Atreus21 said:
Something tells me MLK would object to the weaponization of race that has occurred in leftist circles. He would object to the fact that democrats thrive in environments of racial strife and seem determined to sustain it. This is evident in silly theories like unconscious bias and white privilege, where white people are racist even though they've done nothing racist. I suspect he'd also have nagging doubts about Democrats' increasing viciousness towards Christianity in particular, which was the one allegiance we know he definitely had.
Click to expand...

Er... no? Just the opposite, in fact.

Remember, one of his major criticisms was that "white moderate" tendency to object to protests, to tell people not to talk about race issues, to insist on maintaining the status quo. He wanted racial harmony, but do you notice how he did it? Oh, right -- by being vocal about it and protesting in inconvenient places at inconvenient times. You need strife to effect social change, or else you're just that "white moderate" who's obsessed with preserving order at all costs.

Come to think of it, that "white moderate" sounds a whole lot like you: let's not make race an issue. Stop talking. Don't rock the boat.

MLK might not have been that fond of the Democrats' turn toward secularism, but do you know what he'd object to more? Republicans who regularly make a mockery of Christianity. People who swear they're Christian but gut programs for the poor while lowering taxes for the wealthy. People who take a puritanical tone when opposing LGBT rights but have no problem backing a corrupt, greedy liar who has cheated on all three of his wives. People who claim to follow a religion of peace but gladly support warmongering. He might not race wholeheartedly into the arms of the Democrats, but he wouldn't even give modern Republicans the time of day.
 
Atreus21 said:
Something tells me MLK would object to the weaponization of race that has occurred in leftist circles. He would object to the fact that democrats thrive in environments of racial strife and seem determined to sustain it. This is evident in silly theories like unconscious bias and white privilege, where white people are racist even though they've done nothing racist. I suspect he'd also have nagging doubts about Democrats' increasing viciousness towards Christianity in particular, which was the one allegiance we know he definitely had.
Click to expand...
Oh I'm so sure King would favor the left shutting up their mouths while all that shit went down in Charlottesville. /s Too bad conservatives and people like you prefer silence in the face of injustice.
 
Atreus21 said:
Doesn't AA mean discriminating on the basis of race for the purposes of hiring and college admissions?
Click to expand...
Maybe a quote from King's book Why We Can't Wait might clear that stance up
"It is impossible to create a formula for the future which does not take into account that our society has been doing something special against the Negro for hundreds of years. How then can he be absorbed into the mainstream of American life if we did not do something special for him now, in order to balance the equation and equip him to compete on an equal basis? . . . {I}t is obvious that if a man is entering the starting line of a race three hundred yeas after another man, the first would have to perform some impossible feat in order to catch up with his fellow runner."
Click to expand...
 
Commodus said:
Er... no? Just the opposite, in fact.

Remember, one of his major criticisms was that "white moderate" tendency to object to protests, to tell people not to talk about race issues, to insist on maintaining the status quo. He wanted racial harmony, but do you notice how he did it? Oh, right -- by being vocal about it and protesting in inconvenient places at inconvenient times. You need strife to effect social change, or else you're just that "white moderate" who's obsessed with preserving order at all costs.

Come to think of it, that "white moderate" sounds a whole lot like you: let's not make race an issue. Stop talking. Don't rock the boat.
Click to expand...

Don't make race an issue? Are you kidding? It's almost all that's ever talked about, no matter who is president.

When the NYT posts opinion pieces saying that white supremacists have a fetish for asian women (who, somehow, aren't white), then I think it's time we take a step back. Perhaps the NYT writer should just say that to stamp out white supremacy, we need to outlaw interracial marriage.
 
HomerJS said:
Oh I'm so sure King would favor the left shutting up their mouths while all that shit went down in Charlottesville. /s Too bad conservatives and people like you prefer silence in the face of injustice.
Click to expand...

We don't. What the hell are you talking about? Show me an injustice and I'll call it out. Telling me, "vote democrat or you're racist and siding against justice" is ridiculous.
 
Atreus21 said:
We don't. What the hell are you talking about? Show me an injustice and I'll call it out. Telling me, "vote democrat or you're racist and siding against justice" is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Quote the person who said that. Careful you are dangling your toe in the Trump lake of making shit up.
 
Atreus21 said:
Don't make race an issue? Are you kidding? It's almost all that's ever talked about, no matter who is president.

When the NYT posts opinion pieces saying that white supremacists have a fetish for asian women (who, somehow, aren't white), then I think it's time we take a step back. Perhaps the NYT writer should just say that to stamp out white supremacy, we need to outlaw interracial marriage.
Click to expand...

So then why do you object to Democrats tackling race issues? You call it weaponizing, but the whole point of dealing with race issues is to make people uncomfortable, challenge them on it, not to let things slide. There is such a thing as going over the top, but I don't think the Dems cross that line nearly as much as you think they do.
 
Atreus21 said:
Doesn't AA mean discriminating on the basis of race for the purposes of hiring and college admissions?
Click to expand...

Waa, oppressed people are being given opportunity, waa!

Following that logic, medicaid should be abolished because it's a benefit tailored specifically towards poor people.
 
glenn1 said:
Most segregated place in America these days is public schools in NYC.
Click to expand...

Nah that's complete horse shit. The most segregated place is every state that has a reservation, a literal apartheid where white people go to rape with impunity.
 
Atreus21 said:
Whereas progressives endorse and have implemented deliberate and systemic racism, and give it the name affirmative action.

If we rely on King's standard of judging men by the content of their character and not the color of their skin, then it stands to reason he would be as displeased with democrats as he would republicans.
Click to expand...

I sincerely, sincerely doubt this. People in America are still not judged based on his standard and I strongly suspect he would endorse measures to compensate for that.
 
glenn1 said:
Most segregated place in America these days is public schools in NYC.
Click to expand...

That’s obviously false. NYC schools are in fact very segregated, which is bad, but only an extremely stupid person would think they are the most segregated place in the country. In fact, policies put in place by nyc government have reduced segregation.
 
Commodus said:
So then why do you object to Democrats tackling race issues? You call it weaponizing, but the whole point of dealing with race issues is to make people uncomfortable, challenge them on it, not to let things slide. There is such a thing as going over the top, but I don't think the Dems cross that line nearly as much as you think they do.
Click to expand...

It depends, as always, on how you define racism. For my part, it's exactly how King defined it: treating people according to their color over their character.

What infuriates me is when people pledge fealty to that principle in the first minute and violate it the next. At that moment, the object is not the end of racism, but using it to advance towards a desired goal. That's why I oppose affirmative action. That racism leads to injustice isn't rendered any more palatable by that fact that the right race benefits, and only the wrong race gets screwed over.

I don't know how to fix what ails black Americans, apart from being a good neighbor to them as with anyone else. It just strikes me as intolerably insulting to treat them as if they're helpless. We've done enough to them without laying a nice think slab of patronization on top.
 
Last edited:
By Haitian American artist Watson Mere

My_Brothers_Keeper.jpg
 
fskimospy said:
I sincerely, sincerely doubt this. People in America are still not judged based on his standard and I strongly suspect he would endorse measures to compensate for that.
Click to expand...

He would endorse measures that necessarily violate his standard in order to arrive eventually at that standard?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top