“killed by Israeli fire” is quite the choice of phrase.

I didn’t mention Frederick Douglas because I know who I’m replying to and how to stay on topic.

A. You’re responding to someone else.

B. Ah yes, the meatgrinder tactic, notable for it’s effectiveness when used by the minority group within a conflict. How strategic and clever you are /s

You attempting to use that uncertainty to justify sacrificing marginalized groups is disgusting.

MLK did not say black liberation can only be achieved over queer bodies, you did.

With that amount of vitriol I’m guessing you found it! Let’s go over our evidence shall we?

• homophobia in the 1960s was incredibly common
• one of MLK’s top advisors was an openly gay man
• the only writing we have from MLK on the topic states his viewpoint:¹

“The type of feeling you have towards boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally aquired.___ You honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.”

• MLK was a Christian minister within a historically black protestant church (SCLC) that to this day has not made their opinions about LGBTQIA+ issues known.

Based on that, were I to speculate, it appears to me that MLK was typical of his time and held quite a few homophobic views himself. Not from a place of hate, but from a place of ignorance.

It seems far more likely than “he was an extreme outlier who deeply understood the plight of his queer allies, but alas was forced to make a 4d chess tactical decision to sacrifice them at the altar of public opinion”.

However, the main takeaway is that we don’t fucking know and attempting to use that uncertainty to justify sacrificing marginalized groups is disgusting.

In my opinion it is important for anyone who stumbles upon your dangerous, shit take to understand the place of ignorance it stems from and hoping that you aren’t so far gone that you can realize it too.

You are completely missing the point.

You first made an unprovable claim based on pure speculation.

King never spoke on gay rights because he knew it would be a giant distraction.

You then made a bogus strawman, again, based entirely on speculation.

We couldn’t know why FDR didn’t include women in the draft.

I was using that strawman to demonstrate how your personal perspectives on a time do not constitute reality and how you have to do some actual fucking research before you say dumb shit like you keep doing.

Provide me one other reasonable explanation for King not mentioning LGBTQIA+ besides the one I gave.

I was hoping you’d be semi-competent and be able to find one of, if not the only, times that MLK did speak about LGBTQIA+ issues which was in an advice column written in 1958.

Find it, and tell me what you think.

You can actually make reasonable inferences

You can not infer someone’s motives and opinions whole cloth. Let’s use your example:

we couldn’t know why FDR didn’t draft women

There is a lot of documentation surrounding that with FDR explicitly making a push to draft women as well he explicitly stated his reasoning why and urges Congress to do so. You can go through the historical record on why it passed the house, why it was restricted to nursing roles etc. Had the war not ended it almost certainly would’ve been enacted.

FDR did explicitly want to draft women even though it was contrary to public opinion at the time, however the lack of dictatorship powers is why history played out the way it did.

His reasons matter because you claim to know his reasons:

“King never spoke out publicly about gay rights because he knew it would be a giant distraction.”

He was largely silent on LGBTQIA+ matters and so his reasons are unknowable. You cannot take the lack of evidence and ascribe whatever meaning you would like to it. Double so for proving the negative using that lack of evidence.

You’re deflecting. When did MLK state that was his reason for remaining silent?

Thank you for the explanation. I don’t think you’re wrong, but I do think you underestimate the protective power of name recognition. It’s stupid it works this way, but simply by being there she offers some additional protection to all the other brave individuals participating and thus reduces the chances that they all become names on that list.

I wish others in her position could realize that fact and be brave enough to put themselves in harms way to reduce the risk us mere mortals face.

I’d encourage you to read the reply from SassyRamen and the subsequent discussion there. It’s not about being “semantically correct” it’s about understanding.

Why the use of the word “poor”? She’s being brave as hell and using her publicity in a very productive manner.

Those children grow up to be the ones writing policy. They are people too, don’t forget that you were also once a child.

The “stupidest shit” that is said is often due to them being isolated and in a social bubble where those beliefs are the norm. Those “Internet arguments” may be the only exposure to ideas outside and social pushback outside said bubble.

Lack of evidence of outcome is not evidence of outcome.

If you’re getting heated you’re doing it wrong.

The payoff isn’t to convince the other person one way or another, it’s to provide others reading the discussion alternative viewpoints. In this case pushing back against the idea that children’s thoughts, feelings and questions should be ignored.

You are correct that there is very little that MLK had to say about gay rights, however that does not mean that you can take that absence of evidence and ascribe whatever meaning you want to it.

When did MLK state that was his reason for staying silent on gay rights?

Ah, you’re just being a pedant. My bad.

If it’s not your first language it’s confusing, try interpreting “the worst” as “evil”.

The most evil scum human history has seen

Makes perfect sense

Both sides can’t be “evil” if one is “the lesser evil”.

Doesn’t make sense.

Hope that helps!

The time period they are referencing (old history at this point…) the Ottoman empire was in control of the area and it operated as something of an apartheid state. Pogroms, persecution and oppression absolutely happened. However it was mostly a new import from western Europe. Jewish citizens were second class but they were still “people of the book” and fared much better for most of the empire’s history.

However, understanding a bit more history there is a direct through line from those historical wrongs and the modern Palestinian genocide. It is just a continuation of the Spanish, Portuguese and British (amongst others) campaign against ethnicly semetic peoples that the Jewish people also historically fell victim to.

I will note the slew of pogroms in the middle east and ask you read about why the Bar Giora was formed.

I understand that you are trying to draw a direct line from the modern IDF to a historic Jewish Resistance Movement. However, I would argue that it was coopted by foreign powers and abandoned it’s goal of an independent jewish state after it’s transformation into the Haganah and transitioned from a defensive force (largely support) to a colonizing force (don’t support).

I do not support the Ottoman empire in its persecution of religious minorities. However, I do not see how your logic and worldview wouldn’t support the Ottomans in persecuting the Jewish people at the time due to their militant tactics. What perspective am I missing?

Tell me what your point is or drop it.

The point is controlled opposition, perverse incentives, and the power/danger of “sell outs”.

No, it originated from a 1975 Senate hearing where civil rights lawyer Jack Greenberg took Joe Biden to task for sponsoring bills that would prevent desegregation in Delaware.

The nickname really caught on after the series of “new Jim Crow” legislation, nomination, etc. that culminated in the 90s crime bill.

He was chosen as Obama’s VP explicitly due to that history along with that nickname as a form of appeasement with the “white moderates”.

Wiley Coyote

Ok boomer