41–50 of 59 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. a white supremacist when he advocated for a color blind society?
The phrase has been co-opted; its meaning has changed. As happens with all languages, a phrase is not defined once and never changes, much to my chagrin.
What seemed to be missing was a critical and self-aware statement of why his critics may be right or at least his strongest argument. Without such honesty, any apologia is hollow. In response to the hollowness, I did some googling on racial color blindness and I now am very convinced of its connection to white supremacy. This author had my attention for 10 minutes and was too abstract for me to really learn anything…
So was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. a white supremacist when he advocated for a color blind society?
https://www.axios.com/2023/01/16/martin-luther-king-dream-sp...
Why was this flagged
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What seemed to be missing was a critical and self-aware statement of why his critics may be right or at least his strongest argument. I imagine for any talk (or any theory) about just about anything (worth giving a talk about) will have critics (and reasonable critical arguments.) But, generally, I wouldn't think that that in itself is a good reason to (to some extent) censor his talk. > In response to the hollowne…
> When I was younger, Progressives were striving for color-blindness Now that that ground is conquered and secured, it is time for new conquests.
You feel that we have achieved a color blind society?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Citations please? I was not aware of this. Who or which group has co-opted it, and for what purpose?
Here are several articles explaining[0,2] how that one phrase has been co-opted and misinterpreted to mean exactly the opposite of what MLK intended. If you're curious, Google can reveal many other discussions on this topic. [0] https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/march-2018/martin-l... [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20230410193113/https://academic.... [2] https://theconversation.com/ketanji-brown-jackson-and-t…
She cites no references to support her opinions.
Second citation [1] Assistant Professor of Law, University of Alabama School of Law. B.A. 1980, Wilberforce University; J.D. 1984, University of Pennsylvania Law School.
Again, it's all his opinion with some supporting examples, but no citations.
Third citation [2] Bev-Freda Jackson Adjunct Professorial Lecturer, American University School of Public Affairs
Jackson's article is better, but still includes logical fallacies. "By recasting anti-racism as the new racism, conservative GOP leaders such as Grassley and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican from Texas, use King’s words that advocated for a colorblind society as a critical part of their national messaging to advance legislation that bans the teachings of so-called divisive concepts." She doesn't explain what the problem is here, why what they're doing is wrong, or how and why anti-racism is not actually racism. Citing Dr. King's children opens the door to analysis of their character, and their politics.
Thank you though, I now understand that recent academic activists have attempted to diminish Dr. King's message using double-speak to push their racist agenda. They should be ashamed of themselves.
None of the above applies in any way to the TED video (which I watched and enjoyed). Coleman Hughes does not disparage Dr. King or his message, and probably doesn't care much for anti-racist rhetoric.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When I was younger, Progressives were striving for color-blindness Now that that ground is conquered and secured, it is time for new conquests.
> Now that that ground is conquered and secured You feel that we have achieved a color blind society?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes — the point of a debate is to enable people to think more deeply. Do you think there is any point to reading or writing? By your reasoning, reading and writing are just verbal jousting and if reading or writing make any difference in your life then that is an indication that you really should have just thought more deeply to begin with.
You are right that reading and writing can be verbal jousting but that is not the sole purpose of reading and writing. When dealing with the written word you have a record front of you that you can analyze and look for confirming information to see if the words are manipulation, truthful or outright lies. having words in front of you that you can go back and verify that your memory is correct gives you an opportunity…
What seemed to be missing was a critical and self-aware statement of why his critics may be right or at least his strongest argument. Without such honesty, any apologia is hollow. In response to the hollowness, I did some googling on racial color blindness and I now am very convinced of its connection to white supremacy. This author had my attention for 10 minutes and was too abstract for me to really learn anything…
In other words you'd want him to repent and accept the orthodoxy, before you'll consider listening to his possibly-heretic theories. Whether he is right or wrong is fundamentally irrelevant. TED accepted his talk, reviewed it, fact-checked it, like all other talks; and then bowed to political pressure and quietly moved away from it. That's not a good look, regardless of what the speech might be about. To be fair, it…
When you explain why you think color blindness isn't the right approach you start by saying why it is good, the benefits, why it's reasonable for someone to believe it to be the right way forward and then talk about its flaws.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In other words you'd want him to repent and accept the orthodoxy, before you'll consider listening to his possibly-heretic theories. Whether he is right or wrong is fundamentally irrelevant. TED accepted his talk, reviewed it, fact-checked it, like all other talks; and then bowed to political pressure and quietly moved away from it. That's not a good look, regardless of what the speech might be about. To be fair, it…
Yes, it's like you've never had a serious discussion on any issue before. If you can't in good faith defend the opposing position in the manner in which your opponents themselves view the issue then you'll never be convincing. It is the only way you won't be arguing against a straw man. You'll notice that my point is symmetric and makes reference to which side might be an orthodoxy. This doesn't mean you have to both…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What seemed to be missing was a critical and self-aware statement of why his critics may be right or at least his strongest argument. I imagine for any talk (or any theory) about just about anything (worth giving a talk about) will have critics (and reasonable critical arguments.) But, generally, I wouldn't think that that in itself is a good reason to (to some extent) censor his talk. > In response to the hollowne…
Hate groups are fantastic at co-opting previously reasonable ideas. Some examples: - Woke - The OK hand symbol - Gay - turning a word that literally means "Happy" into a slur - The Punisher symbol - He is not a police-adjacent vigilante. - The US Flag (stars and bars, to be specific) So, yeah, as a fellow older HNer, it's hard to see these kinds of re-defining ideals we once ascribed to. But it's happening, and that…
I'm trying (honestly) to understand your position here. Are you saying you used to think "color blindness" (in the MLK sense) was a good idea -- but you no longer do?
If so: what changed?