Conservatives are starting to ditch MLK

[Associate Justice PiT]

Even if they don't like everything about him, conservative will still insist that MLK was right to say that people should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

     I'd agree with this. MLK did a lot of good, but was an extremely flawed human being. It should not be understood to wipe out or tarnish the former, but the latter should not be forgotten either. A tragic tendency of discourse today is to wipe out every flaw of your heroes, as if bad people can never do good and good people can never do bad.

[LBJer]

Even if they don't like everything about him, conservative will still insist that MLK was right to say that people should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

     I'd agree with this. MLK did a lot of good, but was an extremely flawed human being. It should not be understood to wipe out or tarnish the former, but the latter should not be forgotten either. A tragic tendency of discourse today is to wipe out every flaw of your heroes, as if bad people can never do good and good people can never do bad.

While MLK, like everyone, was not perfect, I don't see any particular justification for calling him "extremely flawed."

[支持核绿派 (Greens4Nuclear)]

Even if they don't like everything about him, conservative will still insist that MLK was right to say that people should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

     I'd agree with this. MLK did a lot of good, but was an extremely flawed human being. It should not be understood to wipe out or tarnish the former, but the latter should not be forgotten either. A tragic tendency of discourse today is to wipe out every flaw of your heroes, as if bad people can never do good and good people can never do bad.

While MLK, like everyone, was not perfect, I don't see any particular justification for calling him "extremely flawed."

I wouldn't say the allegations of extramarital affairs make him "extremely flawed" either but they still cast some shadow on his legacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.#Allegations_of_adultery

[LBJer]

Even if they don't like everything about him, conservative will still insist that MLK was right to say that people should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

     I'd agree with this. MLK did a lot of good, but was an extremely flawed human being. It should not be understood to wipe out or tarnish the former, but the latter should not be forgotten either. A tragic tendency of discourse today is to wipe out every flaw of your heroes, as if bad people can never do good and good people can never do bad.

While MLK, like everyone, was not perfect, I don't see any particular justification for calling him "extremely flawed."

I wouldn't say the allegations of extramarital affairs make him "extremely flawed" either but they still cast some shadow on his legacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.#Allegations_of_adultery

Disagree.  Whatever one's opinion of the morality of extramarital affairs, I don't see why this makes him different from countless other people.  It's certainly not something that makes him stand out.  

The accusation, discussed in that link, that he stood by while a woman was being raped would cast a serious shadow over him, but I (and many others) find it highly dubious.  

[Ferguson97]

Malcolm X is far better than the slave-morality-preaching socialist. One of the greatest men of the civil rights struggle and a genuine hero.

Not gonna lie, you liking Malcolm X is legitimately the most shocking thing I've ever heard someone say on Atlas.

[Indy Texas]

Malcolm X is far better than the slave-morality-preaching socialist. One of the greatest men of the civil rights struggle and a genuine hero.

Malcolm X was a crank who appropriated and adulterated other peoples' religion for his own racist worldview.

[Mr. Smith]

Malcolm X is far better than the slave-morality-preaching socialist. One of the greatest men of the civil rights struggle and a genuine hero.

Malcolm X was a crank who appropriated and adulterated other peoples' religion for his own racist worldview.

On the whole certainly, but that certainly was not the direction he was going towards the end. I have very little doubt he would've gone down very different if he had lived on.  He certainly would not have fallen victim to the COINTELPRO r^%^*ckery.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Since when was red eagle anybody except a conservative ET nobody.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Even if they don't like everything about him, conservative will still insist that MLK was right to say that people should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

     I'd agree with this. MLK did a lot of good, but was an extremely flawed human being. It should not be understood to wipe out or tarnish the former, but the latter should not be forgotten either. A tragic tendency of discourse today is to wipe out every flaw of your heroes, as if bad people can never do good and good people can never do bad.

While MLK, like everyone, was not perfect, I don't see any particular justification for calling him "extremely flawed."

I wouldn't say the allegations of extramarital affairs make him "extremely flawed" either but they still cast some shadow on his legacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.#Allegations_of_adultery

Disagree.  Whatever one's opinion of the morality of extramarital affairs, I don't see why this makes him different from countless other people.  It's certainly not something that makes him stand out.  

The accusation, discussed in that link, that he stood by while a woman was being raped would cast a serious shadow over him, but I (and many others) find it highly dubious.  

     On the contrary, I do see it as a big deal. Whether or not countless other people do it, it's still very wrong. Also he plagiarized parts of his dissertation and promoted some pretty serious heresies (not that I expect people on Atlas to care about that item, ofc).

[LBJer]

Even if they don't like everything about him, conservative will still insist that MLK was right to say that people should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

     I'd agree with this. MLK did a lot of good, but was an extremely flawed human being. It should not be understood to wipe out or tarnish the former, but the latter should not be forgotten either. A tragic tendency of discourse today is to wipe out every flaw of your heroes, as if bad people can never do good and good people can never do bad.

While MLK, like everyone, was not perfect, I don't see any particular justification for calling him "extremely flawed."

I wouldn't say the allegations of extramarital affairs make him "extremely flawed" either but they still cast some shadow on his legacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.#Allegations_of_adultery

Disagree.  Whatever one's opinion of the morality of extramarital affairs, I don't see why this makes him different from countless other people.  It's certainly not something that makes him stand out.  

The accusation, discussed in that link, that he stood by while a woman was being raped would cast a serious shadow over him, but I (and many others) find it highly dubious.  

     On the contrary, I do see it as a big deal. Whether or not countless other people do it, it's still very wrong. Also he plagiarized parts of his dissertation and promoted some pretty serious heresies (not that I expect people on Atlas to care about that item, ofc).

First of all, whether or not it's "very wrong" is very much a matter of opinion.  Secondly, to say that someone did "a lot of good" but was also "extremely flawed" implies the good and the bad were equal or at least comparable.  I don't agree with that at all as far as MLK is concerned.  And even taking the most critical possible view toward the things you've mentioned, they are not what make King stand out.  His contribution to civil rights is what does.

Given your mention of "pretty serious heresies,"  I suspect we're never going to see eye to eye about this--you really lost me there. 

[Associate Justice PiT]

Even if they don't like everything about him, conservative will still insist that MLK was right to say that people should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

     I'd agree with this. MLK did a lot of good, but was an extremely flawed human being. It should not be understood to wipe out or tarnish the former, but the latter should not be forgotten either. A tragic tendency of discourse today is to wipe out every flaw of your heroes, as if bad people can never do good and good people can never do bad.

While MLK, like everyone, was not perfect, I don't see any particular justification for calling him "extremely flawed."

I wouldn't say the allegations of extramarital affairs make him "extremely flawed" either but they still cast some shadow on his legacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.#Allegations_of_adultery

Disagree.  Whatever one's opinion of the morality of extramarital affairs, I don't see why this makes him different from countless other people.  It's certainly not something that makes him stand out.  

The accusation, discussed in that link, that he stood by while a woman was being raped would cast a serious shadow over him, but I (and many others) find it highly dubious.  

     On the contrary, I do see it as a big deal. Whether or not countless other people do it, it's still very wrong. Also he plagiarized parts of his dissertation and promoted some pretty serious heresies (not that I expect people on Atlas to care about that item, ofc).

First of all, whether or not it's "very wrong" is very much a matter of opinion.  Secondly, to say that someone did "a lot of good" but was also "extremely flawed" implies the good and the bad were equal or at least comparable.  I don't agree with that at all as far as MLK is concerned.  And even taking the most critical possible view toward the things you've mentioned, they are not what make King stand out.  His contribution to civil rights is what does.

Given your mention of "pretty serious heresies,"  I suspect we're never going to see eye to eye about this--you really lost me there. 

     I don't agree that my statement implied that the good and bad were equal or comparable, and the thing about a figure like MLK (who contributed heavily to changing public policy) is that the good he did is not meaningfully related to the bad things about him. He made a number of great contributions to America that should not be ignored or diminished, but all the same I don't agree with a hagiography of his life where he's presented as being an ideal human being.

[LBJer]

Even if they don't like everything about him, conservative will still insist that MLK was right to say that people should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

     I'd agree with this. MLK did a lot of good, but was an extremely flawed human being. It should not be understood to wipe out or tarnish the former, but the latter should not be forgotten either. A tragic tendency of discourse today is to wipe out every flaw of your heroes, as if bad people can never do good and good people can never do bad.

While MLK, like everyone, was not perfect, I don't see any particular justification for calling him "extremely flawed."

I wouldn't say the allegations of extramarital affairs make him "extremely flawed" either but they still cast some shadow on his legacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.#Allegations_of_adultery

Disagree.  Whatever one's opinion of the morality of extramarital affairs, I don't see why this makes him different from countless other people.  It's certainly not something that makes him stand out.  

The accusation, discussed in that link, that he stood by while a woman was being raped would cast a serious shadow over him, but I (and many others) find it highly dubious.  

     On the contrary, I do see it as a big deal. Whether or not countless other people do it, it's still very wrong. Also he plagiarized parts of his dissertation and promoted some pretty serious heresies (not that I expect people on Atlas to care about that item, ofc).

First of all, whether or not it's "very wrong" is very much a matter of opinion.  Secondly, to say that someone did "a lot of good" but was also "extremely flawed" implies the good and the bad were equal or at least comparable.  I don't agree with that at all as far as MLK is concerned.  And even taking the most critical possible view toward the things you've mentioned, they are not what make King stand out.  His contribution to civil rights is what does.

Given your mention of "pretty serious heresies,"  I suspect we're never going to see eye to eye about this--you really lost me there.  

     I don't agree that my statement implied that the good and bad were equal or comparable, and the thing about a figure like MLK (who contributed heavily to changing public policy) is that the good he did is not meaningfully related to the bad things about him. He made a number of great contributions to America that should not be ignored or diminished, but all the same I don't agree with a hagiography of his life where he's presented as being an ideal human being.

But I find this to be essentially a straw man.  I don't see people arguing that King was some sort of saint, at least no more so than is the case for other revered people in American history, such as Lincoln or Washington.  

[BullyGirl]

It was a mistake for them to ever pretend they liked him.

[Badger]

https://twitter.com/RedEaglePatriot/status/1483164652544663553quite a contrast from just a few years ago
https://twitter.com/RedEaglePatriot/status/1121464159307280384

The second older post is quite telling. The only passing "like" conservatives ever remotely had for MLK was to misuse and completely decontextualize his statement about dreaming that someday people would not be judged by the color of their skin but rather the content of their character, but solely as a supposed argument against affirmative action. Which of course MLK passionately supported in real life, but why let historical reality get in the way of a good sound bite?

[miles prower]

They more they know about him, the more they hate him.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I thought the standard thing was to pretend that MLK didn't care about wars or jobs.

[MasterJedi]

I mean, I’ve long heard from many conservatives that MLK decried the “white liberal” instead of what he actually decried, the white moderate. He would be absolutely hated by the vast majority of people because they want “order” instead of justice.

[ReaganLimbaugh]

They agreed with that beautiful cross-dresser J. Edgar Hoover's moral crusade against King - that he was nothing but a hypocritical charlatan who liked to have sex with white women and had commie pinko sympathies

You think J Edgar Hoover was beautiful......ewwwwwwwwwwww

[SpammerBoi]

Charlie Kirk is giving an anti MLK speech tomorrow despite calling him a civil rights hero two years ago!

[MyLifeIsYours]

Newsflash! Conservatives are beginning to discover the late Reverend Martin Luther King Jr was a socialist who abhor militarism and advocated for 'woke' ideology.

[MasterJedi]

Newsflash! Conservatives are beginning to discover the late Reverend Martin Luther King Jr was a socialist who abhor militarism and advocated for 'woke' ideology.

They never really cared for the whole equal rights thing either.

[MyLifeIsYours]

Newsflash! Conservatives are beginning to discover the late Reverend Martin Luther King Jr was a socialist who abhor militarism and advocated for 'woke' ideology.

They never really cared for the whole equal rights thing either.

Yes, but years of conservative propaganda of MLK as the good civil rights leader has shown what their true colors are, both in his lifetime and the present day.