If it’s just words then yeah the best thing they could do is retort with words, but as soon as someone swings on them, then it’s fair game, they didn’t just react to words, no matter how many times you try to frame it that way

‘Why can’t they just sit and let people racially abuse them in public? They’re so unreasonable! Just let us be racist fgs’

Martin Luther KIng


"Prior to reading Gandhi, I had about concluded that the ethics of Jesus were
only effective in individual relationships. The "turn the other cheek" philosophy
and the "love your enemies" philosophy were only valid, I felt, when individuals
were in conflict with other individuals; when racial groups and nations were in
conflict, a more realistic approach seemed necessary. But after reading Gandhi,
I saw how utterly mistaken I was.

Gandhi was probably the first person in history to lift the love ethic of Jesus
above mere interaction between individuals to a powerful and effective social
force on a large scale. Love for Gandhi was a potent instrument for social and
collective transformation. It was in this Gandhian emphasis on love and
nonviolence that I discovered the method for social reform that I had been
seeking."


how soon wise words have been forgotten

"An old whose punch you probably wouldn't even notice is a physical match for someone about a hundredth of his age, and therefore going full on Chris Brown is justified"

Who's said anything like thatt?? So when I pointed out that if you go into any area and start acting provocatively an incident might occur; was that making a statement about all people who are from that area?. Your assumptions are quite scary at times TBH. Speak to anyone in an provacative manner and you'll probably get a reaction. Race doesnt come into it.

A grown up violent racist is a violent racist, don’t throw a punch at a random person and expect them not to hit you back just because you’re old

Just remind me how white supremacists rewarded Dr King, for all his talk of peace and integration?

Well with thoughtful and nuanced discussion like this, who could argue? Good job chaps you did it, everything will be better now, and lessons have been learned all round. Personally I just hadn't looked at it that way before, but you've really opened my eyes.

You're right Slim - did he really think that sort of namby-pamby rhetoric would work? LOL what an absolute idiot! What an absolute dope! So naive, really sad. If he'd done the sensible thing and gone out cracking skulls, the civil rights movement would be LIGHTYEARS ahead of where it is now am I right?

Why are you so agitated by people not agreeing with you on this?

I hope this post is snarkily aimed at other people, because you've extrapolated a hell of a lot if that's a genuine reply to my post.

Also worth noting, that even as MLK was spreading his message of peace, he was accused of causing rioting and violence.

I have no problem with reasoned disagreement, I get tired of bothering to think about a topic only to be met with a wall of boring dogma.

My point was that MLK was well aware of how he was likely to be rewarded by white supremacists for his words and actions, and yet he continued to fight using words instead of fists, which is why he's remembered as great. But here we are in a thread in 2020 arguing over whether or not it's OK (or apparently even desirable) for a racist old man to get his head bashed in on a bus. Depressing as **** really.

I actually agree with your stance in this thread. But lets be honest, do you think the post I replied to was a genuine attempt to contribute? And that's why it received the flippant reply I gave it.

Spot on

:clap1:

I can't tell at this point, I've gotten a bit on edge with this one, should probably have stepped off a few hours ago :umm2:.

*A violent, racist old man

about as violent as Theresa may :joker:

Sure but as I said earlier, I'm just not accepting that an old man throwing his boney little hands at adult men is a realistic threat... it's just nonsense. I also don't believe for a second that the retaliation was because of the physical attack, it was because of what he was saying. At least I actually HOPE so because like I've said, I understand why the things he was saying could cause someone to lose their cool and lash out... if it wasn't for the words that had been spoken there'd be no justification AT ALL for a large young adult male "hitting back" at a 70 year old throwing some feeble punches.

MLK was not the only civil rights leader around at the time. Tell us your thoughts on Malcolm X and the black panthers seeing as you're so disapproving of the comments made that you're seriously attempting to invoke MLK. With MLK all three were considered terrorists. All three are revered in the black community.

I said in my original post that violence is not the answer but I get that when a person starts acting provocatively and violently they're the one who need to address ther behaviour and not so much the person who reacts to their provocation.

The only thing they did wrong was the second guy joining in, that was probably too much

Imagine the mental gymnastics required to try to make people who think the racist was in the wrong somehow racist themselves.

Both the racist and the puncher were in the wrong.

But if the racist didn't do what he did, nothing would have happened. If you provoke a situation and turn violent, you can't act like a victim if it goes south.

The racist gets the lion's share of the blame because if it weren't for him, we wouldn't be talking about this because it wouldn't have happened.

Nah