Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by AlphaMan, Jan 18, 2021.
As you have demonstrated.
I think it says exactly that. I understand you may take offense. Seems no matter what I say, you seem to take offense. whatever dude. You do you. I'll do me.
Are you insinuating I have lied about something? If so, please let know so I may clear up any misconceptions.
I'm not calling you a liar. I'm saying - and you've amply demonstrated this throughout your posting history - that you, in fact, are notorious for say anything you want and insisting that your interpretation is the only one. E.g., the only sources you've heard around the term "radical" are right-wing sources; thus you assume everyone has the same experience.
The FBI labeled MLK a communist and used that as an excuse to tap his phones for years. Does their calling him a communist make it true?
*Sigh* Fine, I'll handle the cameras.
Yet, you clearly lie all the time. You do so by putting words in other poster's mouths. You make shit up, then apply it to others. and, I am less inclined to take your word for anything as you can't seem to comprehend what you read, nor ask for clarification with adding your own interpretation. And, you continually tag people in posts that have nothing to do with that person.
So, fuck off with your bullshit.
You both heard the President, right?!
Each other's shoes. NOW!!
No, she doesn't lie all the time.
I'm the one who lies all the time. Everything I say is a lie. This very statement is a lie!
You're correct. I lied. I am unsure if it's possible for anyone to like "all the time". But, she does lie quite often.
If you're trying the Kirk Manoeuvre on her, I'd remind you that all of us here have encountered Dayton.
Illogic holds no danger for us.
Yeah, the Castle Doctrine is clearly better. Nobody can withstand having massive walls of text vomited in their direction constantly.
No. You decide I'm lying based on your confirmation bias. IYO, was MLK a communist?
My confirmation bias? What does my biases have to do with facts?
As for MLK? I can't say I've ever put that much thought into whether or not he (or anyone, really) is a communist. But, what I do know and have read, I think he's just a guy who would like all human beings to be human beings together and to each other. If that makes him a communist, I guess I am too.
What do your biases have to do with facts? Ever see the movie Rashomon? I'd recommend it. And in your ample spare time you can link to precise examples of my "lies." Or you can learn what "confirmation bias" means.
Good answer to a question I didn't ask. Unless you're the FBI.
I don't care about your lies. You brought it up referencing my posting history. I just threw it right back at you.
and no, I'm not FBI.
*sigh* This is the problem with sainting and demonizing people (officially or otherwise). It's 100% right or 100% wrong, never right about some things, wrong about others. Always with the universalizing, always devoid of context. MLK Jr. is a great example. Ghandi, too. MLK was at least a socialist, if not even further left, but his racial views were 100% on. Ghandi got non-violent resistance right, but only in its context -- if it had been the Nazis instead of the British, his resistance would have been exterminated and non-violent resistance as a concept would have been annihilated. He knew that it was because the British people didn't want to see violence opposing non-violence that it could work to gain independence. The Nazis wouldn't have cared. Might have even cheered. And he was a racist motherfucker to boot, particularly against blacks. And yet he is called "Mahatma". George Washington took the teeth out of his slaves' mouths for his own dentures. Doesn't mean he wasn't a great President, which doesn't mean he wasn't a slave-abusing monster. Do I even need to start on Thomas Jefferson?
We should learn from people's good lessons without sainting them, and condemn their bad actions without throwing out the good. There are no saints. There are very few true demons. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't learn from them anyway, we just have to pick the lessons carefully.
Ah, true to form.
Whatever. You are true to form. Continue spamming up someone else's thread so you can continue to feel the center of attention.
You win. Now, go away.
So we agree that words evolve over time? Excellent.
Ah, there you go playing Junior Mod again.
I wish I could put a line of masking tape down the center of wordforge and make you each stay on your own side.
Talking to yourself now?
Wasn't sure whether to snip this or just copy it, so here we are. Gandhi also reportedly beat his wife.
The tendency to idolize public figures makes it easy to create demagogues, and you're right: No one is 100% anything. There's a play based on the life of Huey P. Long called All the King's Men. The narrator is a purely fictional reporter who's followed the politician's rise to power. He has a monologue on that very topic (I'll have to see if I can find it).
One line I remember is about poetry vs poets. "Is a poem any less of a poem because the poet had hot pants?" (which had a very different meaning in 1949). Of course it applies to political movers and shakers as well.
I forgot about that part.
It's enough that I wonder if we should even have a single President. Maybe we should elect people into their own areas of expertise, or directly elect the Cabinet; something like that.
Or consuls? One for domestic, one for foreign policy.
This one I ca.n actually totally agree with. Defund the police is a catch phrase made to attack police and to make problems. It is terrible for the ideas of reformation that are needed.
Yes, MLK is just a man, but he was an amazing and intelligent man. I am always impressed reading his idea and visions. I find it sad that we only have common words for what a person like that has put forth into the social consciousness.
I actually think you miss some of the point of what king says. King recognizes humanity will become violent if they are not allowed to peacefully protest. More specifically he speaks of black people, but I think he would say that it works universally. He recognizes the corruption of the message through violence, but also recognizes that if you treat most people like the Nazis did you are going to get a violent reaction.
There is saying there is a best way to do things, and that is through non-violence, but also recognizing when that is not allowed violence will occur. His view is to reach people through peace, not to shoot them down, and I think he recognized that though his body may be lost to violence the ideas will carry on because that is within how people feel.
I skimmed MLK's works when I was young, and that was probably because I could not grasp the full meaning of his ideas with my limited experience and knowledge. It is part of his greatness that even a shallow view of his works conveys so much truth. To just put him as a civil rights leader is really to minimize his ideas. of course that was huge in his life, but the man had an understanding and wisdom of the great minds of history.
I was thinking 3 people who serve 6 years and one is elected every 2 years.
Separate names with a comma.