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?
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”
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.
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:
If you have a problem with this, I think you’ll hate Malcolm X.
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”?
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.
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.
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.
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
pureenough 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?