• missingno@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Do you mean that we should simply surrender to the right and let them oppress marginalized groups?

    War has been declared, and we can’t just plug our ears and pretend it’s not happening.

    • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 month ago

      In a word, yes.

      MLK’s top lieutenant was gay. King never spoke out publicly about gay rights because he knew it would be a giant distraction.

        • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 month ago

          Show me a time MLK spoke out about gay rights and I’ll delete.

          He was a general fighting a war; he knew there were some battles that couldn’t be won.

          • CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 month ago

            I don’t know anything about that and I’m willing to accept it is true for the sake of discussion. That’s not what I found disgusting.

            • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 month ago

              Well, whatever you do, don’t tell me what the problem is, because then it might get fixed.

                • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  By that logic, every abolitionist who didn’t pick up a gun in 1820 and start killing slave owners was fine with slavery.

                  By that logic, every doctor who can’t cure every patient is a murderer.

                  There are things that are possible and things that aren’t.

                  Frederick Douglas worked for Lincoln in 1860, even though there was an abolitionist candidate. Douglas looked at the situation dispassionately and decided that it was better to support the moderate Lincoln, who did not promise to end slavery.

                  Also, the gay man I mentioned never called King out, because that guy knew you have to pick your battles.

                  • thanks AV@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    Yeah man they knew to pick their battles in a time where black people were a legally distinct second class. They didn’t bring gay issues into it because that wasnt the fight. Black gay men in the 60s were more worried about the fact it was illegal for them to sit at a counter as black people than their individual persecution for being gay. You have no excuse to not care about the persecution of individuals for being gay. Gtfo. This is the fight now, so shut the fuck up.

                    All your examples are people putting their personal convictions aside for the ultimate good, which you are not doing. People in 1820 who didn’t pick up guns WERE okay with slavery.

                    You’re doing the exact opposite of that guy, because you’re saying stop fighting for the rights of your own people because my personal feelings about it are more important, you absolute nonce. Way to completely distort and misunderstand your own point.

          • SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            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?

                • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Why do his reasons matter?

                  He decided that LGBTQIA+ wasn’t a priority. Can you prove otherwise?

                  • SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    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.