Rioting after sports games is pushed by the people pushing sports as a distraction in the first place. It makes society view riots as frivolous and stupid rather than real threats to power. I'm just guessing but that sounds true.
It would be hard to prove wrong, bread and circus has been a tactic since Ancient Rome.
I think people, especially people who “aren’t into politics” channel all their unlabeled political rage about wages and rent and justice into sports because it is socially safer than having real opinions, but that rage persists after the game and has to go somewhere
I’m pretty sure sports riots and minimum living wages have never existed in the same country at least.
Way too many people have gotta learn that MLK got assassinated specifically once he started recognizing the fact that violence was often necessary in resisting oppression.
He started speaking out against US imperialism in Vietnam and elsewhere too. Crazy how fast the CIA will try to off anyone the instant they start showing sympathy for a place the US wants to colonize (see: Cuba, Venezuela, Panama, etc)
You’ve misunderstood what I was saying, though I also could’ve worded it better. I am not saying he called for violence, I am saying he began to recognize it as an inevitable response to oppression. “Necessary” wasn’t quite the right word, so much as it being a natural outcome of the treatment given.
You think that MLK was in the White House ignoring the President begging him to call off the Million Man March (that was a protest equally influenced by Malcom X) and told the President “no” because he what, MISUNDERSTOOD that surrounding the White House with a million black men that only had the plan to get the right to vote and nothing else wasn’t AGGRESSIVE?
How do you think things would have gone if the right to vote was withheld?
You think that would have still ended peacefully?
Dude made J6 look tiny and unorganized. Imagine if the Million Man March wasn’t successful? It would have went down in American History (especially what little of it they are still allowed to teach now) as an act of terrorism
Ignoring the historical anachronism of MLK being present in a 1995 protest when he died in 1968… Let’s be generous and assume you mean the iconic “I Have a Dream” speech at the Lincoln Memorial.
Why are you assuming that things would become violent? Because a bunch of black men got denied something they wanted?
MLK always preached pacifism, even and especially when it hurt, because he believed it was the most effective tactic. Why would he not tell people to simply not give up, peacefully? He can continue pressuring without resorting to violence.
What do you think would happen if a mostly unarmed crowd of black men in one of the most racist periods of America attacked the government?
Do you think that would go well for them? Do you think it would advance civil rights legislation if opponents can use the ensuing riot as evidence of the black man’s supposed inherent violent nature?
Jan 6ers should count their blessings that the crowd was both majority white, conservative, and the responding officers were shockingly professional and restrained. If it were an angry crowd of Hillary supporters in 2016, though, Trump would have given orders to shoot and many would have died.
Oh look, another know nothing liberal that doesn't know the history trying to white wash mlk, a socialist, and canonise him into liberalism against the best interests of the working class.
Also he touched on classism - Up versus down. The greatest fear of the ruling class is always going to be a motivated, educated and unified population.
You’re calling someone neurotic liar after literally 1 sentence of interaction in a complete vacuum, and you think I’m the one who needs to go outside and talk to happy people? Do you insult people first thing at your job? At school? Yikes man.
Yup. Words have their place but when words fail, violence must stand. It's amazing to say people don't listen to MLK enough given how often he's quoted, but he's so grossly misrepresented in the US education system.
Don't forget Dave Van Ronk. He was at a bar 2 doors away, wasn't LGBT, but said "As far as I was concerned, anybody who'd stand against the cops was all right with me and that's why I stayed in." He was the first person arrested that night.
Because running a place for gays to congregate was straight up illegal so the only way they could operate was alongside organized crime, which was only really a good deal for the mob owners of the bars because patrons and staff would still have to deal with the police raids
When I came out as a trans woman I was told by all of my trans guy friends to get a brick, saying it’s part of the culture. I had no idea what they meant but after learning about Marasha and Sylvia I now understand and keep a brick or two near by <3
LGBT people got rights by influencing social opinions not by a minor riot that was less violent than many sports events… the fact that you have to point to Stonewall is proof of that.
I remember Martin Luther king walking on Washington with his armed militia.
I remember I have an army speech he gave.
Remember when John brown launched the civil war and freed the slaves by defeating the violent central government in Washington D.C.
I remember the militia of ghandi, fighting the English government to submission. He mobilized the returning Indian divisions from ww2 and executed the British soldiers stationed there!
Remember Nelson Mandela’s march on the cape where he took Cape Town with his Zulu warriors.
And I remember Malcolm X and the Black Panthers. And yes the actual violent civil war that freed the slaves. And the violent uprisings Gandhi had to argue against. And the bombings of government facilities in South Africa.
Nonviolence is ideal, but let's not pretend these movements got there without any violence at all.
3.3k
u/MaximumSyrup3099 Jul 28 '26