You can use the same logic by far right racists back in MLK day:
“Thanks to your enlightened and superior views on political activism you’ve surely achieved enlightened and superior results to Jesus, right MLK?”
And that argument is just as retarded back in that day.
Lastly, talking about ‘weird’. I find it odd that you put words in my mouth. Never have I stated that I defend said genocide, nor do I attack them? I simply state a fairly common opinion: dont destroy things.
I don’t think that comparison is in good faith. That being said Jesus and MLK DID achieve results, which proves their views on activism are both effective.
You argue your views on activism are valid, and even superior to MLK’s views and yet you have nothing to show for it. Your unqualified armchair quarterback opinions aren’t worth the storage space they use up.
The activists are fighting for something they believe in, they’re doing it in a way that’s effective enough that you’re here commenting about it. I’m not going to sit here and criticize their efforts while doing nothing. That’s just supporting the status quo which, in case you haven’t noticed, is genocide.
Let’s cut to the chase. Comparing vandalism to the activism of MLK and Jesus is a false equivalence. Their activism was rooted in peaceful protest, not destruction. You claim vandalism works, so show me the results. How has breaking stuff actually helped the cause?
And let’s talk about your accusation that I’m supporting genocide. That’s a serious claim. I haven’t said anything close to that. Criticizing methods isn’t the same as opposing the movement. I simply believe, nay, KNOW that smashing windows isn’t the way to win hearts and minds. Just look at Just Stop Oil in the UK. Everybody fucking hates them.
You call me an ‘armchair quarterback’, but where’s your playbook? What are your strategies beyond just causing chaos? If we’re talking about effective activism, let’s see some constructive actions. Vandalism might make noise, but does it make change? I doubt it.
Let’s hear your constructive ideas for change instead of defending destruction. What’s your plan beyond breaking things? Because whining like a child might’ve worked when you were young. But we’re adults now.
You’re the one who juxtaposed the activists, MLK, and Jesus, not me. I even said you weren’t doing it in good faith. Don’t try to flip your own bullshit on me.
I never criticized anyone working hard to shed light on injustice. I have neither claims on what is “the right way” to do activism, nor accolades for my wondrous successes. I’m not whining or complaining about anyone doing actual work or trying their best to achieve actual results.
Your calls for me to prove what I never claimed ring hollow, but your silence on the proven effectiveness of your superior and enlightened methods screams loudly and reverberates far.
Almost as far as the chasm between your claim that you don’t support genocide and your actions which appear to consist entirely of chastising anyone who takes steps to fight against genocide because “they’re doing it wrong”
The only wrong way to fight fascism and genocide is not to fight at all. But you’re going even further, you fight against those who do fight. Which is to say, you fight on the side of those who are committing genocide.
Your argument suffers from a fundamental failure to distinguish between the critique of activist methods and the opposition to the causes those activists champion. By conflating criticism of vandalism with support for genocide, you commit a straw man fallacy that betrays a lack of nuance and intellectual honesty.
Your comparison of modern activism to the nonviolent resistance of Martin Luther King Jr. and Jesus is a false equivalence that ignores the moral and strategic distinctions between peaceful protest and destructive behavior. MLK’s activism was grounded in the belief that nonviolence exposes injustice and appeals to conscience, whereas vandalism risks alienating allies and undermining community trust.
Your justification of any action against genocide, regardless of method, is ethically untenable. It violates Kant’s Categorical Imperative, which demands that actions be guided by universalizable maxims. Condoning destruction as a means to oppose genocide risks moral decay and social fragmentation, as history and ethical theory demonstrate.
Moreover, your reliance on whataboutism and tu quoque fallacies reveals an attempt to deflect substantive critique by attacking the critic rather than the argument. This rhetorical strategy is intellectually dishonest and undermines the possibility of meaningful dialogue.
In sum, your position fails to meet the standards of logical consistency, ethical integrity, and strategic effectiveness.
You did an awful lot of arguing to demonstrate that you still didn’t really read it, and by read I mean digest it, nor fathom why I suggested you start there.
Because you are defensively pearl clutching about entirely different things than the most relevant bit to your arguments here, which is how ridiculous and harmful it is for those in a position of privilege to clutch their pearls about whether the protest actions of those being actively harmed and killed might not be convenient in their timing or execution.
And when you reach the point of recognizing why such pearl clutching is actively harmful to others, instead of reflexively insisting it’s not what you are doing, or insisting that it isn’t harmful, quite a lot of other things will fall in place.
You should do some reading. Start here.
https://letterfromjail.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_from_Birmingham_Jail
I disagree with him?
Lmao. MLK isn’t a Messiah. He also got things wrong. Such as this.
Edit: I thought MLK advocated for vandalism given this context. I was wrong. He did not, actually. Which only proves why vandalism isnt activism
Ah yes. Thanks to your enlightened and superior views on political activism you’ve surely achieved enlightened and superior results to MLK…
No? Just defending genocide and attacking those who oppose it?
Weird…
You can use the same logic by far right racists back in MLK day:
“Thanks to your enlightened and superior views on political activism you’ve surely achieved enlightened and superior results to Jesus, right MLK?”
And that argument is just as retarded back in that day.
Lastly, talking about ‘weird’. I find it odd that you put words in my mouth. Never have I stated that I defend said genocide, nor do I attack them? I simply state a fairly common opinion: dont destroy things.
Is this you?
I don’t think that comparison is in good faith. That being said Jesus and MLK DID achieve results, which proves their views on activism are both effective.
You argue your views on activism are valid, and even superior to MLK’s views and yet you have nothing to show for it. Your unqualified armchair quarterback opinions aren’t worth the storage space they use up.
The activists are fighting for something they believe in, they’re doing it in a way that’s effective enough that you’re here commenting about it. I’m not going to sit here and criticize their efforts while doing nothing. That’s just supporting the status quo which, in case you haven’t noticed, is genocide.
Let’s cut to the chase. Comparing vandalism to the activism of MLK and Jesus is a false equivalence. Their activism was rooted in peaceful protest, not destruction. You claim vandalism works, so show me the results. How has breaking stuff actually helped the cause?
And let’s talk about your accusation that I’m supporting genocide. That’s a serious claim. I haven’t said anything close to that. Criticizing methods isn’t the same as opposing the movement. I simply believe, nay, KNOW that smashing windows isn’t the way to win hearts and minds. Just look at Just Stop Oil in the UK. Everybody fucking hates them.
You call me an ‘armchair quarterback’, but where’s your playbook? What are your strategies beyond just causing chaos? If we’re talking about effective activism, let’s see some constructive actions. Vandalism might make noise, but does it make change? I doubt it.
Let’s hear your constructive ideas for change instead of defending destruction. What’s your plan beyond breaking things? Because whining like a child might’ve worked when you were young. But we’re adults now.
Christ I despise radicals
… you DO realize Jesus literally “vandalized” a market, right?
like, Jesus actually did use property damage to make his point, when he trashed merchants property they had set up for sale in a temple.
soooo…maybe fuck off with this houlier-than-thou bullshit?
Lol!
You’re the one who juxtaposed the activists, MLK, and Jesus, not me. I even said you weren’t doing it in good faith. Don’t try to flip your own bullshit on me.
I never criticized anyone working hard to shed light on injustice. I have neither claims on what is “the right way” to do activism, nor accolades for my wondrous successes. I’m not whining or complaining about anyone doing actual work or trying their best to achieve actual results.
Your calls for me to prove what I never claimed ring hollow, but your silence on the proven effectiveness of your superior and enlightened methods screams loudly and reverberates far.
Almost as far as the chasm between your claim that you don’t support genocide and your actions which appear to consist entirely of chastising anyone who takes steps to fight against genocide because “they’re doing it wrong”
The only wrong way to fight fascism and genocide is not to fight at all. But you’re going even further, you fight against those who do fight. Which is to say, you fight on the side of those who are committing genocide.
Your argument suffers from a fundamental failure to distinguish between the critique of activist methods and the opposition to the causes those activists champion. By conflating criticism of vandalism with support for genocide, you commit a straw man fallacy that betrays a lack of nuance and intellectual honesty.
Your comparison of modern activism to the nonviolent resistance of Martin Luther King Jr. and Jesus is a false equivalence that ignores the moral and strategic distinctions between peaceful protest and destructive behavior. MLK’s activism was grounded in the belief that nonviolence exposes injustice and appeals to conscience, whereas vandalism risks alienating allies and undermining community trust.
Your justification of any action against genocide, regardless of method, is ethically untenable. It violates Kant’s Categorical Imperative, which demands that actions be guided by universalizable maxims. Condoning destruction as a means to oppose genocide risks moral decay and social fragmentation, as history and ethical theory demonstrate.
Moreover, your reliance on whataboutism and tu quoque fallacies reveals an attempt to deflect substantive critique by attacking the critic rather than the argument. This rhetorical strategy is intellectually dishonest and undermines the possibility of meaningful dialogue.
In sum, your position fails to meet the standards of logical consistency, ethical integrity, and strategic effectiveness.
You did an awful lot of arguing to demonstrate that you still didn’t really read it, and by read I mean digest it, nor fathom why I suggested you start there.
Because you are defensively pearl clutching about entirely different things than the most relevant bit to your arguments here, which is how ridiculous and harmful it is for those in a position of privilege to clutch their pearls about whether the protest actions of those being actively harmed and killed might not be convenient in their timing or execution.
And when you reach the point of recognizing why such pearl clutching is actively harmful to others, instead of reflexively insisting it’s not what you are doing, or insisting that it isn’t harmful, quite a lot of other things will fall in place.
Good day.