I have been seeing this quote thrown around a lot but I doubt anybody knows the actual context or what he said before and after that quote. This is what he said before that. "Let me say as I’ve always said, and I will always continue to say, that riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. I’m still convinced that nonviolence is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and justice. I feel that violence will only create more social problems than they will solve. That in a real sense it is impracticable for the Negro to even think of mounting a violent revolution in the United States. So I will continue to condemn riots, and continue to say to my brothers and sisters that this is not the way. And continue to affirm that there is another way." This what he said 3 weeks before that speech. "And I would be the first to say that I am still committed to militant, powerful, massive, nonviolence as the most potent weapon in grappling with the problem from a direct action point of view. I’m absolutely convinced that a riot merely intensifies the fears of the white community while relieving the guilt. And I feel that we must always work with an effective, powerful weapon and method that brings about tangible results. But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years." Just using that 1 line is not representing how he truly felt.
Typical response. Like I said, nothing constructive; or bringing anything valid to the topics. Quoting the same people from Social media over and over with stuff that fits your narrative. That video is valid 'like it or not. People here had no problems with bringing up things Trump has said in the past... which I agree with, there were valid points to be had on things he said in the past, no matter how long ago they were. All good though, hopefully the few posters here regurgitating the same stuff will seek out their own knowledge. It's quite the circle jerk here, but that's OK. I'll stop by every-once in a while to see if there is some good discussion going on, but I'll hop out for now.
I don't think you understand the point of that line. His message is exactly what I believe. You are also confusing MLK's normative and positive claim here. His postivd claim is riots are the language of the unheard. Is normative claim is that riots are still not justified and are unproductive. The statement "riots are the language of the unheard" isn't some normative "ought" statement of his moral beliefs. It's simply a positive claim about human nature.
I am not claiming anything as normative or positive, I am just giving context to the quote people keep using over and over again. How am I confusing anything I just gave the context of that quote. So why do you keep using that quote?
Thank you. I've been hearing this quote a lot and in the context of that people shouldn't judge the rioters. MLK was very clear about his view of violence.
I know what it means. It's used in economics as a "ought" claim. "The federal government ought to be fiscally more conservative" which is normarive to a positive claim which would be " the federal government has a 1 trillion dollar deficit". These concepts can be applied outside economics. I'm not missing anything right? I want to make sure the resident pedantist is happy. Glad you are using your philosophy degree to good use as I heard it isn't that marketable in industry.
"riots are the language of the unheard" is a purely descriptive claim. What you are labeling the "positive claim" is actually the normative or evaluative claim, i.e., the moral argument: riots are not justified.
HK was just 1 example...oppressed people rioting has occurred in America and all across the world pretty much since the dawn of civilization coronavirus...over 40 mil unemployed...over 100k dead...Arbery chased and gunned down with video evidence, yet 3 different DAs try to cover it up or do nothing, and it takes 2 months and a 4th DA plus the involvement of the GBI to finally make an arrest and produce charges...and with all that going on, so many are trying to bring up Arbery’s past to try and justify his murder...Breonna Taylor killed in her bed due to a no-knock warrant at the wrong address...her boyfriend tries to defend his home against who he thinks are burglars, and he gets charged with attempted murder...NRA who is all about gun rights and protecting yourself says nothing...the Floyd killing which has been 1 of the hardest hitting of an unarmed black man getting killed...this wasn’t something where a guy went to scratch his nuts, the police thought he had a gun, and then killed him...the “I thought he was armed” type of killing is something we see often...this was a handcuffed man lying on the pavement who was yelling out he can’t breathe, calling out to his dead mom, pleading for the demonic cop to get his knee off of his neck with bystanders doing the same, and yet he still placed it there for 9 minutes in broad daylight on a busy street while being filmed what we are seeing was a powder keg that was on the brink of erupting, and Floyd’s horrific death was the situation that eventually made it happen despite all this, most of the protests have been peaceful with thousands of people marching, chanting, and holding up signs in solidarity all across the country even if they are often getting hit with flash grenades, tear gas, and rubber bullets like we witnessed yesterday in front of the White House yes, there are those taking advantage of the situation to loot and commit arson, and many of these are evil agents who are looking to come and put the actual peaceful protesters in a bad light if nothing is done as is usually the case, then the anger will only continue to intensify
I'm claiming that "riots are the language of the unheard" as postive and "riots are wrong" as normative.
Yes you are. You are confusing "riots are the language of the unheard" as me making an assumption that MLK is making a normative claim justfying rioting. He was merely making a claim about human nature. I've always known that MLK doesn't think riots are morally sound. What did you think I meant?
Hmm I checked back and it seems like an honest mistake on my part. I've already expressed this opinion before with the correct terminology. I just didn't proof read. You are correct in this post I incorrectly switched the terms. My paragraph below it didn't make the mistake. I edited it anyways so now it's fully correct.
I am not confusing anything because I am not claiming what he meant. Again why are you continuing to use that quote by itself? I don't know what you meant that's why I am asking.
It was a reasonable correction to make. I made that snarky reply assuming I didn't make a mistake. I thought you were being pedantic as I thought the "mistake" you were pointing out was that "normative" and "positive" statements are mainly terminologies used in economics.
Well I guess you don't read my posts because everyone I've expressed that quote I've expliclty stated that isn't a moral judgement about rioting but rather a statement about human behavior given specific context. So no,it was obvious from the first time I've expressed that quote, that my intention wasn't make a moral justification for rioting.
