• @Katana314
    link
    English
    326 days ago

    MLK would absolutely disagree with you.

    First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”

    Justice delayed is justice denied. Anyone who says “Yes, you should have civil rights!…Later.” is saying No.

    Many have already tried to argue that the American Healthcare system is broken, and were shot down or given vague promises that it was steadily improving.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      236 days ago

      Gandhi also preferred violence over sitting on your hands

      It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. Violence is any day preferable to impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent.

        • @JubilantJaguar
          link
          English
          -86 days ago

          As mentioned: protests, marches, sit-ins, strikes, there are plenty of forms of direct action. Direct action is not the same thing as violence.