We can use exonymous terms however we like. MLK was certainly someone who fought for social justice. MLK's civil rights movement was condemned in very similar terms at the time as the progressive movement is nowadays, including groups like BLM.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What Is A Social Justice Warrior?
- Thread starter Rival
- Start date
We can use exonymous terms however we like. MLK was certainly someone who fought for social justice. MLK's civil rights movement was condemned in very similar terms at the time as the progressive movement is nowadays, including groups like BLM.
buddhist
Well-Known Member
I'd simply call that an authoritarian (both left & right elements)
Great! That's how I identify. Glad we can see eye to eye on this.
How is legitimacy decided? Perhaps you should see how MLK and Gandhi was portrayed by many US and British media respectively? Legitimacy is retrospective is it not? Goes for George Washington vs British press too I deem...
Its not as if Gandhi did not burn property or break laws. Or..how about the Boston Tea party?
Are Greek protests against austerity measures legitimate?
How can a protest ever be legitimate in the present? If the protest wins, it will gain legitimacy among the descendants, but not before.
"The Russian Bolsheviks might be considered the first "national communists" insofar as Russian Social Democracy was so markedly different from the European Social Democratic parties."
Yes.
Speaking as someone on the left, far-left extremists.Go.
buddhist
Well-Known Member
I'm a libertarian ... an anti-authoritarian.
I'm a libertarian ... an anti-authoritarian.
I'm a libertarian too! A socialist libertarian!
buddhist
Well-Known Member
So ... voluntary socialism?
I know; what I meant is that we are not arguing over definitions.I'm a libertarian ... an anti-authoritarian.
This was basically just his pacifism. He refused to condemn anybody absolutely, although certainly he'd deeply oppose their ideas.
As for that last one quote from 1946 - what do you think he's saying there? He's not exactly endorsing the Holocaust or calling for the killing of Jews.
I dunno. Anarchism.
buddhist
Well-Known Member
It can be. I can create a voluntary association of individuals where we can freely and voluntarily share goods. That would be an example of voluntary (opt-in) socialism.
But it would still be forced to operate within an overarching capitalistic and liberal-democratic paradigm.
buddhist
Well-Known Member
Yes, and I would be against that overarching paradigm, if it involves forced corporatism or forced socialism.
It's a shame really. Any time a term becomes easily recognizable in both it's literal and ironic sense, it excuses the people using it from any obligation to think about what they're saying.
As it is it can be (and is) used to imply that anyone with any altruistic leanings is automatically a self-serving, hypocritical poser.
As it is it can be (and is) used to imply that anyone with any altruistic leanings is automatically a self-serving, hypocritical poser.
Capitalism cannot but be forced - I can't opt out, or I starve to death.
buddhist
Well-Known Member
Sure you can, starvation is our opt-out.
Perhaps we disagree on what coercion is, then.
He's talking about some very high ideals, which he even acknowledges aren't reached by everyone.