this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2025
31 points (89.7% liked)
MeanwhileOnGrad
1911 readers
146 users here now
"Oh, this is calamity! Calamity! Oh no, he's on the floor!"
Welcome to MoG!
Meanwhile On Grad
Documenting hate speech, conspiracy theories, apologia/revisionism, and general tankie behaviour across the fediverse. Memes are welcome!
What is a Tankie?
Alternatively, a detailed blog post about Tankies.
(caution of biased source)
Basic Rules:
Sh.itjust.works Instance rules apply! If you are from other instances, please be mindful of the rules. — Basically, don't be a dick.
Hate-Speech — You should be familiar with this one already; practically all instances have the same rules on hate speech.
Apologia — (Using the Modern terminology for Apologia) No Defending, Denying, Justifying, Bolstering, or Differentiating authoritarian acts or endeavours, whether be a Pro-CCP viewpoint, Stalinism, Islamic Terrorism or any variation of Tankie Ideology.
Revisionism — No downplaying or denying atrocities past and present. Calling Tankies shills, foreign/federal agents, or bots also falls under this rule. Extremists exist. They are real. Do not call them shills or fake users as it handwaves their extremism.
Tankies can explain their views but may be criticised or attacked for them. Any slight infraction on the rules above will immediately earn a warning and possibly a ban.
Off-topic Discussion — Do not discuss unrelated topics to the point of derailing the thread. Stay focused on the direct content of the post as opposed to arguing.
You'll be warned if you're violating the instance and community rules. Continuing poor behaviour after being warned will result in a ban or removal of your comments. Bans typically only last 24 hours, but each subsequent infraction will double the amount. Depending on the content, the ban time may be increased. You may request an unban at any time.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If you have a problem with this, I think you'll hate Malcolm X. Really, i was just trying to have a conversation and found out OP was screenshotting and sharing here. So if anyone would like to engage with the actual content of Malcolm X's letter to the grassroots please continue the thread. Im open to rational conversation.
https://lemmy.world/post/33270073
Edit: i suck at links. This one might be better https://lemmy.cafe/comment/12584550
You realize that MLK was literally speaking up against racism, the Vietnam War, economic justice, to the point that they shot him, right?
They only have a little handful of in-broad-daylight public figure bullets they can use every decade without people starting to get all up in arms about it, and out of all the people in the US, they spent one on him. He was saying that the whole of race relations was a sideshow for the deeply rooted economic injustice that every working man was facing, we need to stop the wars, stop the exploitation of everyone black and white... do you think they shot him because he was doing too good a job of sidelining everyone's righteous anger with these horizon-spanning marches, and they wanted more of a challenge with him out of the picture and the blacks better able to organize once he was gone?
What the fuck are you talking about?
The whole US media was saying he was a communist, a rioter, he was going to burn down the cities and ruin everything...
Why the fuck would I hate Malcolm X if I like MLK Jr? What the fuck are you even talking about? We need Matt Taibbi in here to come up with new metaphors for how little sense this all makes.
I was just quoting Malcolm X letter to the grassroots where he said MLK was working to keep people "on the plantation". Please read the link comment in my edit on the original.
Edit : link https://lemmy.cafe/comment/12584550
Okay. Here's the whole non-excerpted speech BTW:
https://www.themelaninproject.org/tmpblog/2021/7/12/message-to-the-grassroots-by-malcom-x-full-transcript
Sounds like a fine critique. I don't really agree with it, but sure, they were both working for racial justice.
Personally I think there was a reason why MLK was killed probably by the government, and Malcolm X wasn't. Sure, maybe if X had lived, they would have shot him too, I don't know. And they probably knew it was coming and didn't try to stop it. But they definitely thought MLK was dangerous enough to kill. Whatever Malcolm X thought about it and had to say, the government themselves definitely weren't happy like "oh we gotta keep this guy around so he can keep everyone on the plantation for us."
Thank you for engaging with the substance of the argument! Personally I think you probably need both. If there is no unhinged element it doesn't make the nonviolent one seem that threatening, but honestly I go back and forth.
I did find it fascinating that contemporaries of MLK has such disparaging views of him.
I also think Malcolm was probably killed by the government or at least the government used the Nation of Islam against him, but i freely admit that is somewhat conspiratorial and we won't know, at least until all the files are released.
It wasn't "his contemporaries." It was Malcolm X, apparently.
His liberal contemporaries, sure, they were constantly telling him to tone it down or that it wasn't the time, or that he was making it difficult for them to make "progress." His civil rights contemporaries, by and large, were pretty in favor of what he was doing. Sometimes they even showed up and walked around with him in some little groupings, in public, just to subtly send a message that they might have been in favor of what he was doing.
I have no idea why you are going out of your way to shit on MLK in this particular way. It has been an interesting little window in the workings of some people on Lemmy. I think, honestly, that some of it comes from feeling comfortable expressing opinions and assertions about things where you honestly don't know even a vague approximation of what the fuck you're talking about.
I actually studied this era and movement at the masters level and wrote papers related to the topic. Lol.
Im not shitting on MLK as much as I am quoting Malcolm X. Everyone (not you, just generally speaking) always acts like black people are a monolith and always agree about who is a good guy or that to be black and disagree with the DNC or MLK makes you an republican or an uncle tom and thats it. There are actually critiques of MLK and DNC from the far left too.
I feel like it was interesting that this perspective was completely lost to history. If it means people think im an idiot but learn more about what actually happened thats fine me.
Theeeeere it is lmao. Starting from MLK was a creative and interesting choice, sort of a new spin on "this leftist person you like is actually BAD because he's WORKING FOR THE MAN and as a good leftist I don't think we should support him." I certainly have seen that one, but not about a political figure that's been dead for over 60 years.
In any case I think we're done here. At least it explains why you follow closely with the pattern of:
Like I say... we're done here. Have fun with your engagement on Lemmy. I hope you find some people who really take you super super seriously and listen closely to what you are sharing with them, to help inform them fully about this urgent point of view they need to understand.
Wow that's a creative take on my thoughts. I just hadn't got to talk to anyone normal about this and didn't realize it work be taken that way. So my apologies I guess. Didn't mean to tar your hero or anything. I guess thats definitely one logical way to read that though. I can't fault you for reaching that conclusion.
Thanks engaging with me, genuinely.
Wait until I find out he cheated on his wife. My fucking head will probably explode. Don't tell me, though, I'm super simple minded when I look at figures I admire in history.
I also love hyperbole. I hope you don't really think im saying you are simple minded or anything. I just wanted to have a conversation online, but forgot how difficult it was. Just speaking of my general experiences, im not saying all dems or all white people or anything.
In my mind, I don't care about MLK or Malcolm X. I mean they are both fine, whatever... I don't not care about them either. Its more about their ideas. In my mind, figuring out why the civil rights bill passed when it did is a very important question with implications about the proper means of political activism in modern day America. As in what was the immediate precursor, what was the "tipping point."
The narrative I was told growing up and in school simply didnt align with the series of events Malcolm described. I assumed other people might find that interesting too, but instead I think I remembered why I don't engage online.
You are the only one who gave a reasonable reply that showed you actually somewhat read it. But I guess I don't really know how to succinctly say and get to that point so I pissed you off too. So my bad. Ill stop before I make it worse and go back to my corner before I was screenshotted and shared in this community.
Dude, you can't post up something pretending that MLK was "worried more about fundraising than anything else" and basically a tool for the white man to derail the movement, and then get all surprised when the reaction is negative, even if you then walk it back to "oh I just thought it was an interesting perspective they didn't teach me in school." Continuously pivoting back to people calling you out on it not being "reasonable" or being mean to your innocent discourse isn't really doing you any favors there either.
Indeed it is. With the political discourse climate as it is in modern-day American, I think part of the proper means that are necessary is to vigorously push back on shifty little narratives when they start trying to worm their way into the conversation. A lot of this stuff is (very effectively) spreading around and inserting dishonest little narratives to undermine support for leftist figures.
There are also some extremely instructive lessons to be drawn from the civil rights movement, of course, on that I'll agree completely. But if your take on MLK was that he was a tool of the white man that held the movement back more than anything, I don't think you're qualified to be able to weigh in on that side of it.
He's not ideal before he left the Nation of Islam, no, but I understand that in his last year of life you'd probably regard him as a filthy shitlib like MLK Jr.
Comparing before and after like that sounds a lot like a purity test from the man who started a whole thread rage bating people into arguing about purity tests. Or am I missing something?
Do you have any fucking idea what a purity test is, or is your grasp of the English language as tenuous as your grasp of politics?
"Purity test is when you make a comparison, and the more comparison you make, the more purity test it is"
Lol. So what about Malcolm wasnt ~~pure~~
enough when he was in nation of Islam? The fact he embraced an eye for an eye means his criticism of MLK was invalid? That is your argument, correct? Just making sure i understand.
No, you don't understand, unsurprisingly.
His criticism of MLK is invalid because the criticism is invalid on its own fucking merits, not because he was part of the Nation of Islam. My comment about before/after was not about the section quoted in the OP, but the general statement you made that:
Wherein I pointed out that he had a stark difference in his views before and after he left the cult of the Nation of Islam.
I see your grasp of the English language is, indeed, as tenuous as your grasp on politics.
So what about how first hand account where he mentions having the corresponding newspaper clippings is without merit?
What the fuck does that have to do with the criticism?
"Malcolm X talked about infighting amongst Civil Rights leaders and had newspaper clippings of this; therefore, MLK Jr. was a filthy shitlib and a figurehead who achieved nothing"?
What the fuck
So you think Kennedy just magically out of the goodness of his heart passed the civil rights bill. Why did that happen your account. Malcolm lays out a clear logical reason. You have yet to engage with the substance of his argument.
Okay, I see you're carrying on an argument with the imaginary friend in your head, completely divorced from anything being typed here. You have fun with that.
Did you even read what Malcolm X said?
He lays out a clear record of why the civil rights bill was actually passed. I can look up the newspaper headlines showing MLK and other civil rights leaders were busy arguing and fundraising when grassroots leaders were inciting people and it was at that time when Kennedy announced the bill. I That is the exact kind of action MLK would have never endorsed and that is why he was the enemy according to Malcolm. That is the substance of his argument.
Do you care to engage with it or not?
ML "The riot is the language of the unheard" K Jr.?
Jesus fucking Christ.
If you read it you would know thats not the kind of action Malcolm was advocating.
So which is it? Is Malcolm X, in your view, saying that civil unrest caused the Civil Rights Act, or is he saying that it was insufficient to cause the Civil Rights Act?
Or, most likely, are you living in an alternate reality of your own fantasy wherein there was a revolution that caused the Civil Rights Act after overthrowing Congress?
The answer from you, of course, I realize full well will be "Whatever I need to say to continue upholding my asinine position with no relation to reality."
For crying out loud. Read or listen to the speech. It is such a simple argument I assumed someone who is into history would understand it by now.
His argument is there is no such thing as a nonviolent revolution. He directly links the violent protests in several towns to the passage of the civil rights bill. I have no idea where you are getting overthrowing congress.
So if you disagree with that can you tell me why the civil rights act was passed when it was passed. There is no gotcha or anything here. Im genuinely curious your reasoning.
Which is not only asinine and disproven by historical fact, but utterly irrelevant to the issue of MLK Jr., who explicitly presented his movement as the alternative to brewing violence, as shown by the quote on riots that you dismissed and are now reversing your position on.
What the fuck do you think a revolution is.