George Floyd murder / Derek Chauvin guilty of murder

[Metal Biker]

Wait, so I am arguing against a point you weren’t making but this is the first time you have said this in the entire debate?

Ok, I will go along. What was the point you were making if not that the majority of Americans supported MLK at the time of his death?

Actually i've said it twice and you've not picked up on it.

The point i've made this whole time is that the majority of Americans supported the message of MLK, and this continued following his murder and grew exponentially in the years afterwards.

 

[SebastianBlue]

Actually i've said it twice and you've not picked up on it.

The point i've made this whole time is that the majority of Americans supported the message of MLK, and this continued following his murder and grew exponentially in the years afterwards.

Ok, this is different to what you originally said, but I will accept that this is the point you ultimately intended, as I am sure you accept you were arguing against a point I never made.

And we will have to agree to disagree about whether that was true before and immediately after his murder.

Though, we both seemingly agree support grew over the years after his murder and that he is rightfully lauded by many more people now.

 

[Metal Biker]

Ok, this is different to what you originally said, but I will accept that this is the point you ultimately intended, as I am sure you accept you were arguing against a point I never made.

And we will have to agree to disagree about whether that was true before and immediately after his murder.

Though, we both seemingly agree support grew over the years after his murder and that he is rightfully lauded by many more people now.

It's actually not; I don't know why you've interpreted it to mean that, hence my confusion as to why you've got involved and with the angle you've gone with.

 

[SebastianBlue]

It's actually not; I don't know why you've interpreted it to mean that, hence my confusion as to why you've got involved and with the angle you've gone with.

Ok, mate, for the sake of moving on, I will accept it was a misunderstanding.

 

[Metal Biker]

Ok, mate, for the sake of moving on, I will accept it was a misunderstanding.

Fair enough

 

[Bigga]

Understanding doesn't necessarily mean supporting though. A key factor also overlooked.
He knew of it's effectiveness but was lothe to see the situation degrade to that scenario. He was still on the side of acceptance and understanding winning through.

Dr King was a smart man, a very thoughtful one that understood his position in the American dialogue at that time.

The words he chose towards his end straddled the position of peace without overtly condemning violence out of the result of oppression and brutality. Why? *Because he understood it.

It is cited that Dr King said of his influence, Ghandi, that the Gandhian philosophy was

“the only morally and practically sound method open to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom”

which is pretty much what people associate with Dr King, but Ghandi also said

“Peace cannot be built on exclusivism, absolutism, and intolerance. But neither can it be built on vague liberal slogans and pious programs gestated in the smoke of confabulation. There can be no peace on earth without the kind of inner change that brings man back to his "right mind."

Which recognised in his philosophy change and can be heard in his criticisms of the political parties.

Without changing, his stance shifted to encompass the wider context of fight, that much is clear.

*to note, at this point I had to take a call, so lost my original train of thought.

 

[Bigga]

Why would people be so outraged about his murder if they weren't originally supportive?

Polls always attract the usual type; those who want to have their opinion expressed and then used as an example of the national feeling. There is simply no evidence to suggest that the majority of American people were opposed to the message that MLK advocated.

But.. your only empirical 'proof' is the question "Why would people be so outraged about his murder if they weren't originally supportive?".

This is what I don't understand. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you.

Just cite evidence of this fact or it's just anecdotal on your behalf.

 

[Metal Biker]

Dr King was a smart man, a very thoughtful one that understood his position in the American dialogue at that time.

The words he chose towards his end straddled the position of peace without overtly condemning violence out of the result of oppression and brutality. Why? *Because he understood it.

It is cited that Dr King said of his influence, Ghandi, that the Gandhian philosophy was



which is pretty much what people associate with Dr King, but Ghandi also said



Which recognised in his philosophy change and can be heard in his criticisms of the political parties.

Without changing, his stance shifted to encompass the wider context of fight, that much is clear.

*to note, at this point I had to take a call, so lost my original train of thought.

Of course he was; he saw an uphill battle, the minds of the people he needed to win over and the years of indoctrinated racism he had to reverse. It must have been exceptionally frustrating for him, knowing all the institutions he had to fight against, the toes he would have to step on to get the progress that was required for a nation he genuinely loved.

He held a message of social progress, one that would ultimately benefit everyone, but the entrenched views of bigots hindered that progress and was often perceived as confrontational, purely because it was a reality that middle America had to admit to, but refused.

MLK tried every attempt to address that message peacefully, whilst also having to atone for the actions of those who he sided with whose frustrations and patience had run out, but knew was borne from those same frustrations. It's why he's so revered; he could easily have gone with the message of "burn it all down!", but knew that it was harder to rebuild a house from ashes.

 

[Bigga]

I'm sorry for going to the source rather than just accepting the framing of some random article.

It's pretty rich of you to complain about people wasting time lol

Don't recall you drawing from any source at the point of my reply.

Now you're boring me as you can tell as I respond to you less and less.

I have lost interest in dialogue with you.

 

[Metal Biker]

But.. your only empirical 'proof' is the question "Why would people be so outraged about his murder if they weren't originally supportive?".

This is what I don't understand. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you.

Just cite evidence of this fact or it's just anecdotal on your behalf.

It is generally anecdotal, I will freely admit to that, but it's not one borne from personal assumption but from historical observation. History showed that across the country in the years following his murder, all American peoples were genuinely so shocked about his murder that collectively there was a societal discussion to bring about change, one supported across all backgrounds (except the usual bigoted aspects).

Its one that has been continuing for decades, although has slowed to some extent in recent years. MLK's message has not been forgotten, which so easily could have been if not supported on a national basis.