• pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    what the hell are you talking about? I’m talking end goals and you’re talking methods. unless your take is that Malcom x didn’t really have an opinion one way or another as to whether black people should be able to eat at a restaurant, you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing.

    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      You obviously dont know a ton about the civil rights movement. I just told you that some people, to simplify, wanted equal rights, but also wanted separation.

      • pyre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        you’re not following the conversation. you’re replying to a quote that says if you’re neutral in a case of oppression you’re on the side of oppressors. it implies that people are either against oppressors or at least implicitly supporting them; they can’t claim to not have a position on it. this might shock you but Malcolm X was against the oppressors. he was not neutral, and he did not support the oppressors.

        so what you’re saying is irrelevant and pointless, unless you’re trying to equate his views with the segregationists and saying he’s like a different kind of oppressor or something… which I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren’t.