Well said Alpha.. In my younger days on this board, I was a lot more partisan in the libertarian sense. Back then the Democrats were basically an automatic no for me. After growing up and being not so active on WF for nearly all of last decade, my opinion towards our American center-left has changed quite a bit for the better. For example, I would definitely vote for a Democrat like Chris Coons without a second thought. I concur that the Democratic party today is pretty moderate with the exception of a few in Congress who do in fact scare the moderates away. Looking at a sample of his MLK tweets from yesterday.. huge contrast with AOC's cherry picking of MLK's more unfiltered thoughts. It's between night and day.
Here’s a prime example. https://wordforge.net/index.php?posts/3312201/It’s one of those, “weren’t you one of those guys that said fill in the blank? Then when I reply, “no” they call me a liar. Then I challenge them to provide a quote of whatever it is they’re accusing me of saying, 9 times out of 10 they can’t. I tried looking for the conversation that I’m talking about and couldn’t. I’ll try again later.
I'm still not completely understanding what you are trying to convey, @Daedalus12. Is it that you dislike those words coming from the mouth of a woman? or do you think the economic issues of the 1960s have been resolved and need no further "fixing"?
I think I have already stated pretty clearly that I have a problem with the phrase "radical redistribution of political and economic power" which is not a solution to any societal problems, rather it's the opposite. It could have came out of a man's mouth.. If you want me to check all the boxes here.. I got no feeling of uneasiness with senator Klobuchar's MLK tweet. VP-elect Harris didn't have a tweet directly about MLK on MLK. but she did retweet Joe Biden's tweet about MLK. Again no uneasiness.
So, your issue is with the phrase "radical redistribution". And that makes me think you have listened too much to right wing propaganda. Over the last 50 years, there has already been a radical redistribution of wealth and political power from the middle class to the upper class. The exact opposite of what MLK was suggesting needs to happen. AOC is suggesting that it is even moreso needed now. So, unless you think things are fine as they are, then I am still unsure what it is you dislike about the phrase "radical redistribution of wealth and political power".
I'm curious as to how one might achieve social fairness, which would indeed require a big change in political will, the economy and society, without uttering the words "radical redistribution of political and economic power". Unless D thinks we can pull the equivalent of "Ssh! Be vewwy, vewwy qwiet! I'm hunting capitalists!"?
I have probably said that violence happens when people believe that the system does not have the ability, nor do the people in power have the willingness, to resolve a problem with fairness and justice. However, not all instances of this belief are equally grounded in reality.
I want to point out that while MLK was talking about political and economic power needing to be redistributed you went to wealth. It is not a law of nature that wealth is synonymous with economic and political power. Accepting it as such is partially accepting the entire unjust structure of the American system. Through such things as robust consumer protection laws and labor laws economic power can be passed down to the non-wealthy w/out any redistribution of wealth. In a bit of a gray area are things such as social safety nets, public education, various voucher programs which while a righty might call redistribution I don’t believe fits the definition.
In my mind that phrase has quite a bit of violent and destructive connotations.. but since you have explained a particular example in your mind as what constitutes a "radical distribution .." I think I actually agree with you. From me, that particular example would be phrased as an unhealthy GINI index or too large of distortion in income/wealth distribution. Based on that, I think we both can agree that America has an unhealthy GINI index and it could be better i.e. rejoining the ranks of Western Europe/Australia/Japan/South Korea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient#/media/File:Gini_since_WWII.svg
Or, as I do, he sees that it's obfuscative. It doesn't need to be "radical" redistribution, which in this case is synonymous with "drastic," as in "All your money are belong to us." It's not unlike "defund the police." Whoever comes up with these phrases should be forced to provide footnotes.
The link doesn't work for me. ETA: looks like you included the It's Taking it out, it goes back to the Declaration of Independence 2.0 thread, wherein you called for a second revolution over a series of purported injustices going back 40 years. Here's what you said to start that one: https://wordforge.net/index.php?posts/2854182/ I think it's certainly a reasonable interpretation of that statement that you are pro violent revolution. If you meant something different, feel free to specify.
Granted, but the word has taken on several additional layers of meaning since his death, not all of them helpful.
Well lets see I've only been on this earth for 35 years.. In 31 of those years, until Trump got elected, politics were mere theories on paper to me and somewhat of an entertaining internet hobby (debating of politics) with very little potential impact on my life.. I can't seriously claim that I was against anything politically to be honest. It would be offensive to those who are actually impacted by policy changes! Now if you mean, do I think the current distortions in income/wealth distribution is unhealthy for America as a whole, I think I've answered definitely yes in the same post that you quoted just now.
As far as I know, the only ... alternative meanings to the phrase were provided by right wing propaganda to create a false narrative totally designed to protect the wealthy to continue their siphoning of wealth from the middle class.
“The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter. ’tis the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.” - Mark Twain. In that particular case, it's not even close. It's mind boggling how "defund the police" became the slogan for a movement that doesn't actually want to "defund the police." Instead of footnote, they could just say "reform the police" or something like that.
Yeah, there's a whole thread about that here somewhere, and the amount of disinformation on FB and elsewhere is mind-boggling. Even this doesn't seem to make a dent in it:
Yeah, using a less than perfect word is really bad because it gives pantshitters and demagogues an excuse to go
Sorry, but I can't think of a worse catch-phrase than "defund the police" to describe what's really intended. That said, language is fluid and evolves over time. I'm sure if I told @Jenee I thought she was "nice," she'd take it as a compliment. It wasn't always. That said, no matter how you parse it, "additional" =/= "alternative.
Apropos to everything else going on in the world, the fact that you ever got to view politics as just a hobby with no real impact screams of privilege. I'm not saying that as shade or bashing, but to point out most non-white, cis, straight abled-bodied men have never been able to say this, yet they've had much of the influence for centuries. I will say if you've opened your eyes to the reality of politics, that's a step in the right direction.
FFS, people. The thread is about MLK. MLK made a statement way back in ... the 1950s or 1960s. The only people who have made "additional" or alternative () (who the fuck cares) meanings have been right wing propaganda intentionally attempting to mislead the public into believing poor black people want to take their money and not have to work. I find this especially funny as in the US, the lazy people wanting something for nothing is rich white people and yet stupid people still believe the right wing propaganda. I can forgive Daedalus for not knowing this as he is still relatively young. However, one would think a left leaning woman, older than I am would recognize the same kind of propaganda that has been used to keep women in their place. But, then, she still blames Monica Lewinsky, a 21 year old very young woman, for deliberately, and intentionally, leading Bill Clinton astray - despite his having a history of using and abusing women throughout his political career - and no, not all abuse is physical.
"Who gives a fuck"? People who recognize that language, particularly English, is fluid. It evolves over time and in the context of history. But no matter how you personally choose to parse it, additional is not necessarily the same as alternative. The fact that you've heard nothing but right-wing propaganda around the term "radical" does not mean that's the only, or accurate, interpretation. Would you mind if I said you were nice?
You can say anything you like. I was in the second grade when it occurred to me that people can say anything they want, that doesn't make it the truth. So, I've never given a rat's ass what other people say.
