That’s exactly the argument that I did effectively counterargue, which is why I asked.
People who opposed MLK said the exact same thing about him. What is he protesting? What’s his goal? He should make his purpose more clear, and protest in a different way. It’s just a cheap and lazy way to attempt to discredit something you don’t agree with. Anybody who uses that argument as an excuse to defer to the other side was on the other side to begin with.
All I had to do was type “women’s march” into google and the preview for their website and the Wikipedia page partially showed their intention. I didn’t even have to click on anything! But then again, I listened to most of the speeches that were given during the march so I already knew what their purpose was, since they laid it out just as clearly as MLK did. (And they were just as peaceful...people also falsely accused MLK of inciting violence at the time.)
I think it’s telling that you listen to what MLK said directly to learn what he protested but rely on the media coverage of random protesters in the crowd to judge their movement. Like I said originally to the other person, I sense a clear lack of a good faith effort to learn what it was about.
I don’t think we’re understanding each other very well.
And like any other person, I would see how the followers of a protest act to judge the presenter. They are one of the only reasons any cause has traction. Without followers, supporters, or crowd members it wouldn’t be a protest. It’d be somebody standing on a box ranting.
So unfortunately when those supporters act a certain way, they determine how a lot of people will classify a protest and decide whether or not to find out what it’s about.
If I had been walking along and saw people screaming in the streets, marching in genitalia costumes and threatening the government I’d walk the other way. Whereas with the MLK walk, they may have been screaming in the streets, but they weren’t dressed offensively, and they were spreading a message of peace and change through brotherly love.
That’s not how MLK’s protests were viewed at the time, and the way you described the women’s march isn’t how history will view them. In 50 years, conservatives will be using the women’s march as an example of how people are supposed to protest in an effort to denegrate the protests of that time. That’s how it always goes. Look how much conservatives love Abraham Lincoln, who was quite progressive and despised by conservatives at the time.
Either we don’t understand each other or we just have very different views that aren’t going to change here.
The women’s march also includes anti Jewish sentiment. So they lose the moral high ground. Also why is the women’s march mixed in with the pro choice crowd? Isn’t anti abortion women represent like 50% of the population?
It’s more like 20% to 35%, depending on how you define anti abortion - 20% oppose it in all situations and 35% oppose it in most situations - but I honestly have no idea why that would mean pro choice women shouldn’t protest it. I’m also not sure why the entire movement would lose the moral high ground because one of their leaders is of Palestinian descent and is pro Palestine. She’s certainly said some problematic things but there’s a difference between being anti Israeli policies and being as virulent and openly anti Semitic as, say, Donald Trump.
I It Normal I like Trump
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
That’s exactly the argument that I did effectively counterargue, which is why I asked.
People who opposed MLK said the exact same thing about him. What is he protesting? What’s his goal? He should make his purpose more clear, and protest in a different way. It’s just a cheap and lazy way to attempt to discredit something you don’t agree with. Anybody who uses that argument as an excuse to defer to the other side was on the other side to begin with.
All I had to do was type “women’s march” into google and the preview for their website and the Wikipedia page partially showed their intention. I didn’t even have to click on anything! But then again, I listened to most of the speeches that were given during the march so I already knew what their purpose was, since they laid it out just as clearly as MLK did. (And they were just as peaceful...people also falsely accused MLK of inciting violence at the time.)
I think it’s telling that you listen to what MLK said directly to learn what he protested but rely on the media coverage of random protesters in the crowd to judge their movement. Like I said originally to the other person, I sense a clear lack of a good faith effort to learn what it was about.
--
[Old Memory]
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Anonymous Post Author
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I don’t think we’re understanding each other very well.
And like any other person, I would see how the followers of a protest act to judge the presenter. They are one of the only reasons any cause has traction. Without followers, supporters, or crowd members it wouldn’t be a protest. It’d be somebody standing on a box ranting.
So unfortunately when those supporters act a certain way, they determine how a lot of people will classify a protest and decide whether or not to find out what it’s about.
If I had been walking along and saw people screaming in the streets, marching in genitalia costumes and threatening the government I’d walk the other way. Whereas with the MLK walk, they may have been screaming in the streets, but they weren’t dressed offensively, and they were spreading a message of peace and change through brotherly love.
--
candylady
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
That’s not how MLK’s protests were viewed at the time, and the way you described the women’s march isn’t how history will view them. In 50 years, conservatives will be using the women’s march as an example of how people are supposed to protest in an effort to denegrate the protests of that time. That’s how it always goes. Look how much conservatives love Abraham Lincoln, who was quite progressive and despised by conservatives at the time.
Either we don’t understand each other or we just have very different views that aren’t going to change here.
--
[Old Memory]
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yeah it’s probably best to just agree to disagree, otherwise we’re both going to walk in circles.
The women’s march also includes anti Jewish sentiment. So they lose the moral high ground. Also why is the women’s march mixed in with the pro choice crowd? Isn’t anti abortion women represent like 50% of the population?
--
candylady
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
jojo_potato
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
It’s more like 20% to 35%, depending on how you define anti abortion - 20% oppose it in all situations and 35% oppose it in most situations - but I honestly have no idea why that would mean pro choice women shouldn’t protest it. I’m also not sure why the entire movement would lose the moral high ground because one of their leaders is of Palestinian descent and is pro Palestine. She’s certainly said some problematic things but there’s a difference between being anti Israeli policies and being as virulent and openly anti Semitic as, say, Donald Trump.
Geez, guys chill.