This lettering is a form of oppression.
Dr. King’s policy was, if you are nonviolent, if you suffer, your opponent will see your suffering and will be moved to change his heart. That’s very good. He only made one fallacious assumption. In order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience. The United States has none.
Stokely Carmichael
What does “the United States” refer to here? The government? The populace?
Both perhaps, at the time of his assassination MLK Jr. had about 80% of the country hating him.
Cool maymay, can’t find the OG image. Anyone care to help?
As someone with a strong autistic sense of justice and hyper empathy, usually the fight is between the psychopaths and whatever idiots they’ve manipulated to their cause against the rest of us. They’re psychopaths and narcissists, they have no morals. That’s why they’re evil. You can’t appeal to morality that isn’t there. There’s only one way to deal with them and they’ll pick us off one by one, like they always do, while we hem and haw with delusion about how everything will be ok.
That was literally what MLK and Gandhi did.
That’s crazy. What happened to them anyway?
A bunch of European monarchies also voluntarily granted power to democratic institutions.
Ghandi wasn’t actually a pacifist, though, it was just a tactic that happened to be expedient at the time
I’m pretty sure MLK only worked because the Black Panthers were doing a good/bad cop thing.
Yeah, basically. Between MLK and Malcolm X, no matter how you wanted to resist, they had you covered. That’s why the government killed them both.
And the changes MLK sought only came following the race riots after his death. I don’t want to discredit him because he was essential to the civil rights movement, but ultimately his martyrdom is what brought the change he fought for
I’m pretty sure the Black Panthers only worked because MLK was doing a good/bad cop thing.
Gandhi’s method wasn’t the only method for India’s fight for independence.
I broke up with my crazy ex. That was definitely freeing, and I don’t recall any violence.
You were
voluntarily(not-involuntarily-forced-into) being oppressed and decided tostop volunteering for it(use the freedom that was already there: to leave without facing violence)It’s not like immigrants can just “break up” with ICE
Edit: Removed “voluntary” because it could be construed as “consented to” and not “free to choose without constraint/threat” like I meant it
People in abusive relationships are “volunteering” to be abused?
Well…that’s certainly a take
a) I was talking about the specific situation OP described, not any abusive/bad relationship ever
b) If it was abusive that would likely have made it violent (psychological violence is violence)
c) “Voluntary” as in they could choose to leave without threat to their safety/wellbeing, not “oh boy I wholeheartedly desire this.”
Comrade Pikachu.
How many data centers could a Pikachu power?
Wrong question. How many could he fry?
lmao. You have just now been hired to run as a republican. We’re going to put billions of dark money behind you.
~ Theil, Ellison and Texas probably
What a detached-from-reality take. I’m not saying that appealing to the moral sense of the oppressors usually works (it doesn’t) but when a group of people successfully gains their freedom, it’s usually by appealing to that moral sense. After all, if the oppressor wasn’t stronger than the oppressed, there probably wouldn’t have been oppression in the first place.
Yeah, but it’s won by appealing to the moral sense of the masses. OP specifies “the people who were oppressing them”.
Or voting
