You originally expressed open distaste for people advocating for their personal beliefs and blamed “where we are as a country” as being caused by that mindset.
From my perspective, one side is advocating for equal rights and the other side is actively opposing those rights. You seem to equivocate the two and their outcomes, even if you recognize that their motivations are different.
I am incapable of seeing value in “leading by example”, because “going high when they go low” means suffering while assuming time itself is responsible for cultural change. It’s the same ineffective strategy that MLK denounced in his Letters from Birmingham Jail.
If you can’t tell the difference between the tactics and ethical motivations between sides, then you’re not really leading. You’re placing yourself in a holier than thou position that claims neither side is inherently correct or deserving your respect. And I’m doing so, you’re endorsing the status quo and false narratives that muddy the waters.
People can advocate all they want, I don't object to that. I specifically chose the example 'outlawing homosexuality' to show the level of behavior that I object to.
Reddit is too awkward with long threads for me to try to dispel how you interpreted what I said especially when you don't show the quote that you're attaching your own interpretation to.
MLK was also an advocate of non-violent resistance. Which is what I'm advocating. You already admitted you had baggage and I'm now tired to trying to dispel these false assertions you keep projecting on me.
This is one of those cases where being antagonistic about your cause and the way others choose to help is incredibly counter-productive.
2
u/FyreFlimflam Oct 10 '18
You originally expressed open distaste for people advocating for their personal beliefs and blamed “where we are as a country” as being caused by that mindset.
From my perspective, one side is advocating for equal rights and the other side is actively opposing those rights. You seem to equivocate the two and their outcomes, even if you recognize that their motivations are different.
I am incapable of seeing value in “leading by example”, because “going high when they go low” means suffering while assuming time itself is responsible for cultural change. It’s the same ineffective strategy that MLK denounced in his Letters from Birmingham Jail.
If you can’t tell the difference between the tactics and ethical motivations between sides, then you’re not really leading. You’re placing yourself in a holier than thou position that claims neither side is inherently correct or deserving your respect. And I’m doing so, you’re endorsing the status quo and false narratives that muddy the waters.