Kansas City overwhelmingly votes to remove Martin Luther King's name from historic st

[*michaelsean*]

(11-06-2019, 04:13 PM)GMDino Wrote: No it was during a meeting to rally people to get out and vote:



I still think it was disrespectful to walk in and just stand there, not even sit down when asked.

Edit: However we have churches and preachers doing sermons about politics every week in this country so I guess we should ban all those too to so we can avoid such protests?

Well I will have to say that I’m fairly jaded against protests. Most are utterly useless. I think most protestors are virtue signaling (finally a hip phrase that I can use) or they are frustrated at their inability to change something. I know. A bit ironic considering the person we are discussing.

[Belsnickel]

(11-06-2019, 04:31 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: This looks like an example where one side jumped to racism too quickly.

That said, it's surprising to me that there isn't already an MLKJ Blvd in KC. I figured every city had one by now. The guy is right that that doesn't reflect favorably on the city that so many people are eager to remove the name, even if it was changed improperly.

They renamed a street here to MLKJ Blvd a few years back (which was against because I think it is stupid to name things in a city for someone that never even set foot in the place). At the time, an older gentleman had recently moved to the area to be near his son, a professor of music at the university. His name was Fred Gibson and he was a classmate of King's in seminary and worked with him throughout the rest of his life, marching alongside him. He and I got to know each other as we lived in the same building and went to church together. It wasn't long before his passing in 2015 that we were chatting about the renaming that had occurred and he said "you know, one thing that no one ever talks about whenever things are named after MLK is that he would have hated it. He would've hated having things named after him because it puts the focus on him and that is never where he wanted it to be."

We had a lot of interesting conversations about his work with King and his time trying to carry on the legacy and the mission King left him with after his passing.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-06-2019, 10:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: They renamed a street here to MLKJ Blvd a few years back (which  was against because I think it is stupid to name things in a city for someone that never even set foot in the place). At the time, an older gentleman had recently moved to the area to be near his son, a professor of music at the university. His name was Fred Gibson and he was a classmate of King's in seminary and worked with him throughout the rest of his life, marching alongside him. He and I got to know each other as we lived in the same building and went to church together. It wasn't long before his passing in 2015 that we were chatting about the renaming that had occurred and he said "you know, one thing that no one ever talks about whenever things are named after MLK is that he would have hated it. He would've hated having things named after him because it puts the focus on him and that is never where he wanted it to be."

We had a lot of interesting conversations about his work with King and his time trying to carry on the legacy and the mission King left him with after his passing.

I think there's always a large degree of disconnect between famous people and the way they are remembered.  In MLK's case I'd say to the gentlemen you referenced that naming the street after him is as much for the people of that community to feel he's being honored as the actual remembrance.  Especially for an ethnicity that's been traditionally marginalized in this country, having a street named after one of your most, if not the most, prominent people is a mark of recognition of both your existence and contributions.

[Dill]

(11-06-2019, 09:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I will call out his BS every time I see it.  Seeing as how I responded to the point of the thread in every post maybe you should spare us all your sanctimony and let your boy defend himself.

Three people besides Dino had a problem with the aggressive intrusion into a church, silent or no, and I'll wager all of those people are for "peaceful protest."  

But you decided Dino's dissent, his alone, meant he was no longer for peaceful protest. A "contradiction." And if he thinks this one protest was disrespectful then you fallaciouslly claim he must now believe ALL peaceful protest is disrespectful. These are not logical and necessary conclusions. They're just a decision to "call bs" on Dino because you want to and any pretext will do, on any thread.  

So that's really all about Dino, not the "the point of the thread."

And this isn't just about you two any more. It's about the health of the message board.

The forum rules don't say targets of personal attacks need to "stop feeling persecuted."
The forum rules don't say personal attacks are ok if the attacker feels the victim deserved it and so promises to continue.

The forum rules say personal attacks are forbidden.

And more personal attack is what you promise when you vow to call out Dino's speciously defined "hypocrisy" on into the future.

[Dill]

(11-06-2019, 09:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm not sure the Church being "home" excuses the pastor using it for political motives and then asking others to respect a house of the lord. Matter of fact I am sure; he forfeited that sanctity. 

As far as your preference protesters form at a distance; I'll assume you'll criticize all protesters who fail to do so. I know I will.

You view of this matter seems to be a little "slanted" but that could just be my observation of it. You may be calling it down the middle.  

That's because I was agreeing with you. lol 

I'm not sure the church forfeited any "sanctity."  I don't have a problem with people using a church for a meeting of members and others interested in working up political action of some sort.  That doesn't mean anyone can walk in and disrespect them so long as they are "peaceful."

King and the freedom marchers did things like that.  It didn't people could now treat the church like a public park.  

[GMDino]

(11-06-2019, 10:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: They renamed a street here to MLKJ Blvd a few years back (which  was against because I think it is stupid to name things in a city for someone that never even set foot in the place). At the time, an older gentleman had recently moved to the area to be near his son, a professor of music at the university. His name was Fred Gibson and he was a classmate of King's in seminary and worked with him throughout the rest of his life, marching alongside him. He and I got to know each other as we lived in the same building and went to church together. It wasn't long before his passing in 2015 that we were chatting about the renaming that had occurred and he said "you know, one thing that no one ever talks about whenever things are named after MLK is that he would have hated it. He would've hated having things named after him because it puts the focus on him and that is never where he wanted it to be."

We had a lot of interesting conversations about his work with King and his time trying to carry on the legacy and the mission King left him with after his passing.

I think we get caught up in these things as "memorials" for what the person "represented" and are willing to overlook that the person was hum and flawed.  I don't mind naming a road after MLK anymore than naming one after Reagan.  If the people who live there want it and it's done "the right way".  

I get that King may not have wanted it...I don't know that that matters as much as promoting a legacy of the ideals he stood for.  Leaders have to take the heat of the focus being on them because they are the leaders.  Nature of the beast stuff.  But it makes for interesting debate on whether we should do these things or not.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-07-2019, 11:46 AM)Dill Wrote: Three people besides Dino had a problem with the aggressive intrusion into a church, silent or no, and I'll wager all of those people are for "peaceful protest."  

But you decided Dino's dissent, his alone, meant he was no longer for peaceful protest. A "contradiction." And if he thinks this one protest was disrespectful then you fallaciouslly claim he must now believe ALL peaceful protest is disrespectful. These are not logical and necessary conclusions. They're just a decision to "call bs" on Dino because you want to and any pretext will do, on any thread.

The other views are rather more nuanced than that, but let's go with your broad assumption.  The other three do not have a long track record of far left support for protest.  Cheering protest against those you don't personally like while calling protest against those you do "disrespectful" is hypocrisy.  I will call out said hypocrisy when I see it, regardless of the poster.

Quote:So that's really all about Dino, not the "the point of the thread."

So, as explained above, it's really not.  I'll repeat, every single post in here is about the thread topic.  If you disagree find one that isn't and quote it.  It's not a huge thread so it shouldn't take you very long.

Quote:And this isn't just about you two any more. It's about the health of the message board.

The forum rules don't say victims of personal attacks need "stop feeling persecuted."
The forum rules don't say personal attacks are ok if the attacker feels the victim deserved it.

The forum rules say personal attacks are forbidden.

Let's not pretend for one second that's what you actually care about.  If it was we'd see posts like this from you in response to uber trolls and professional alters like BallsofSteel and Baker.  I've never seen you call them out, not even once.  So what you really oppose are people that don't agree with you and won't swallow whatever BS is currently being shoveled by your buddies.  You want us to start thinking otherwise, practice even a modicum of consistency in this area.

Quote:And more personal attack is what you promise when you vow to call out Dino's "hypocrisy" on into the future.

Calling out bad arguments, hypocrisy, strawmen and outright fabrications is not a personal attack.  I know you want it to be so you can run to the mods and make this a safe space for you and your buddies, but it's not.  Stop crying wolf.

[GMDino]

(11-06-2019, 08:58 PM)Dill Wrote: I think our OP is thankful for general interest in the topics upon which he posts and likely enjoys hearing all sides.

He gets his back up, though, when discussion of his alleged personal flaws is insistently substituted for the thread topic, and in thread after thread by the same poster. If the OP defends himself, that generates the kind off-topic personal "discussion" that often leads to lock down, doesn't it? And if he doesn't, then the stalker just gets to snipe at him all day.

Either way, it is a distraction for rest of us trying to continue our discussion on topic.

I'm just glad someone is keeping track of my activities on the board so I don't have to.   

My posts are better vetted by board members than Trump's prepared speeches are.  

All seriousness aside good debate on subjects is always welcome even if I end up being wrong on the facts and the end results.  That's why I share what I consider interesting stories.  This was one where I could see both sides and how it played out. Both good and bad.

I know some are amazed that not everyone finds the same things interesting and I'm glad that feel the need to responds and tell me. 

[GMDino]

(11-06-2019, 08:06 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: A couple of observations.  Seems like the folks of KC aren't against a MLK dedication, just not the most historic boulevard in the city.  Looks to me like City Council acted on their own rogue motives to ambiguously name a street, without first getting approval of their constituents.

I agree that's why I said I can see both sides of this.

(11-06-2019, 08:06 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: On a side note about the protesters in the Church.  I think it was wrong for the Pastor to invoke the "House of the Lord" into the fray, when the building was clearly being used for a political gathering.

Grayarea for me personally but that was another reason I posted it. Neither side looks good in how they were protesting the proposed fight over the name.

(11-06-2019, 08:06 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Lastly, I find it curious, if not satisfyingly amusing that the OP, who covers this forum with threads similar to a shotgun blast, would get upset that another member would take interest in responding to him.  

I read a lot during the day so I post what I find is interesting...that's what the board is for me, a place to share political stories for discussion. And I love a good back and forth. Debate is great for getting to issues...even if I am wrong. But one poster's continued obsession with me just is annoying and I feel it distracts from the board in general. Lucy and I used to go back and forth. (Lucy and everyone used to go back and forth! LOL!) and when it gets into personal opinion of what the other person "meant" and it goes on in every thread it's worthless. I was guilty of it in the past and I learned and won't do it anymore. When I feel a thread is getting personal and "heated" I simply log out for awhile. Emotional posting won't help. That doesn't mean we will never have a disagreement but that the insistent "calling out" of other posters is unnecessary. Others need to learn that lesson too.

[Dill]

(11-07-2019, 12:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The other views are rather more nuanced than that, but let's go with your broad assumption.  The other three do not have a long track record of far left support for protest.  Cheering protest against those you don't personally like while calling protest against those you do "disrespectful" is hypocrisy.  I will call out said hypocrisy when I see it, regardless of the poster.

LOL so it's about "track record."

And "cheering protest against those you don't personally like" in one case and then calling another protest "disrespectful" in another case when you happen to favor the target of the protest is not automatically hypocritical, even if Dino does it. Assuming so is a long ways from "nuanced."

And a promise to call out Dino, specifically, on future threads, as you have so frequently in the past, is not "regardless of the poster."

(11-07-2019, 12:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So, as explained above, it's really not.  I'll repeat, every single post in here is about the thread topic.  If you disagree find one that isn't and quote it.  It's not a huge thread so it shouldn't take you very long.

Calling out bad arguments, hypocrisy, strawmen and outright fabrications is not a personal attack.  I know you want it to be so you can run to the mods and make this a safe space for you and your buddies, but it's not.  Stop crying wolf.

Not long at all. So check this out, from your post #10:

"So, peaceful, silent protest is disrespectful?  Got it.  I'll have to remember your position on this for when you contradict yourself later."

This statement is "about the thread topic" only insofar as it uses Dino's claim this specific protest was disrespectful to produce the non sequitur that Dino is claiming ALL peaceful, silent protest is disrespectful. Followed by your vow to use this specious conclusion for future "call outs" of Dino, not future discussions of protest.  

So the issue is not whether you MENTION the thread topic in your post. No one is claiming you don't. The issue that you are simply using it as a pretext for continuing attacks on Dino, who has a "track record." 

Agreed that "calling out bad arguments" is not personal attack. But creating bad arguments so you can repeatedly attack the integrity of individual posters, dogging them from thread to thread, is personal attack.

(11-07-2019, 12:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Let's not pretend for one second that's what you actually care about.  If it was we'd see posts like this from you in response to uber trolls and professional alters like BallsofSteel and Baker.  I've never seen you call them out, not even once.  So what you really oppose are people that don't agree with you and won't swallow whatever BS is currently being shoveled by your buddies.  You want us to start thinking otherwise, practice even a modicum of consistency in this area.

Nothing wrong with "opposing" people who don't agree with me on message board like this. That is the point of most discussion. 

Balls and Baker personally attack Trump and other political figures. But I am not aware of them repeatedly targeting and personally attacking individual posters on this board, and promising to continue it into the future. I don't recall any threads shut down because their continued personal attacks derail discussion. 

That's why you don't see me "calling them out."  And conversely, you don't see me "calling out" other posters with a long track record of far fight support. It's not my job; I am complaining in this case because, once again, I see a thread filling with toxic posts and I don't like the degradation of discussion that entails. 

So let's not "pretend for a second" that now, as in the past, I'm flagging bad behavior for political reasons, and not because it really is bad behavior.

[fredtoast]

I completely understand why street names, confederate statues, and the battle flags are hot issues with African Americans. I just wish they were able to get as much interest in protesting for issues that would have more effect on their lives.

For example school funding has to change. Schools are regulated by the State, but the funding is controlled by local sales tax. The biggest reason the poor have trouble breaking the cycle of poverty is that they have the shittiest schools. Sate laws need to change so that all schools receive the same amount of funding. That would have a MASSIVE impact on the lives of the poor, yet there are not crowds of people protesting over something like that.

Guess it is just easier to go after the low hanging fruit even though it does nothing to help the lives of poor/minorities.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-07-2019, 01:26 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL so it's about "track record."

And "cheering protest against those you don't personally like" in one case and then calling another protest "disrespectful" in another case when you happen to favor the target of the protest is not automatically hypocritical, even if Dino does it. Assuming so is a long ways from "nuanced."

And a promise to call out Dino, specifically, on future threads, as you have so frequently in the past, is not "regardless of the poster."

Yeah, a person's history is rather relevant, no?  As to calling him out specifically, if he engages in that behavior, absolutely.  If he doesn't, then no.  It's not that complicated.

Quote:Not long at all. So check this out, from your post #10:

"So, peaceful, silent protest is disrespectful?  Got it.  I'll have to remember your position on this for when you contradict yourself later."

This statement is "about the thread topic" only insofar as it uses Dino's claim this specific protest was disrespectful to produce the non sequitur that Dino is claiming ALL peaceful, silent protest is disrespectful. Followed by your vow to use this specious conclusion for future "call outs" of Dino, not future discussions of protest.  

Actually, quite a bit longer than that as you, predictably, cherry picked one sentence from that post.  The post absolutely addresses the thread topic.  You deliberately omitted the part of the post that did in a rather pathetic attempt to prove your point.  In so doing you actually proved mine, so thanks, I guess.

Quote:So the issue is not whether you MENTION the thread topic in your post. No one is claiming you don't. The issue that you are simply using it as a pretext for continuing attacks on Dino, who has a "track record." 

Agreed that "calling out bad arguments" is not personal attack. But creating bad arguments so you can repeatedly attack the integrity of individual posters, dogging them from thread to thread, is personal attack.

Except I absolutely didn't.  Again, quote the entire post of an example in which I failed to address the actual topic of the thread.  Calling out GM on his garbage while simultaneously addressing the point of the thread is still addressing the thread.

Quote:Nothing wrong with "opposing" people who don't agree with me on message board like this. That is the point of most discussion. 

Balls and Baker personally attack Trump and other political figures. But I am not aware of them repeatedly targeting and personally attacking individual posters on this board, and promising to continue it into the future. I don't recall any threads shut down because their continued personal attacks derail discussion. 

It was at this moment that Dill lost all credibility.

Quote:That's why you don't see me "calling them out."  And conversely, you don't see me "calling out" other posters with a long track record of far fight support. It's not my job; I am complaining in this case because, once again, I see a thread filling with toxic posts and I don't like the degradation of discussion that entails. 

So let's not "pretend for a second" that now, as in the past, I'm flagging bad behavior for political reasons, and not because it really is bad behavior.

Except you clearly don't.  You have your targets and you like to pretend you don't.  I get it, you're hardly the only person I deal with that calls out behavior in some while ignoring it in others.  Don't bother responding further btw, this discussion has reached the limits of any fruitful potential outcome.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(11-07-2019, 02:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I completely understand why street names, confederate statues, and the battle flags are hot issues with African Americans.  I just wish they were able to get as much interest in protesting for issues that would have more effect on their lives.

For example school funding has to change.  Schools are regulated by the State, but the funding is controlled by local sales tax.  The biggest reason the poor have trouble breaking the cycle of poverty is that they have the shittiest schools.  Sate laws need to change so that all schools receive the same amount of funding.  That would have a MASSIVE impact on the lives of the poor, yet there are not crowds of people protesting over something like that.

Guess it is just easier to go after the low hanging fruit even though it does nothing to help the lives of poor/minorities.

I know in Cincinnati and here in Indiana, schools are funded through Property Taxes and in the more affluent areas, Levy's pass with ease. The inner cities, like Cincinnati where apartments outnumber homes have a hard time passing...it makes no sense. 

It makes no sense that a school levy can't pass when those who will not be paying for it but will benefit from it will not vote for it.

[Dill]

(11-07-2019, 05:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Actually, quite a bit longer than that as you, predictably, cherry picked one sentence from that post.  The post absolutely addresses the thread topic.  You deliberately omitted the part of the post that did in a rather pathetic attempt to prove your point.  In so doing you actually proved mine, so thanks, I guess.

Except I absolutely didn't.  Again, quote the entire post of an example in which I failed to address the actual topic of the thread.  Calling out GM on his garbage while simultaneously addressing the point of the thread is still addressing the thread.

Dino calls one peaceful protest "disrespectful." You conclude he has thereby claimed ALL peaceful protests are disrespectful--a logically faulty conclusion--but you nevertheless claim "contradiction!" and tell the board your future plans for deploying your faulty conclusion. You'll continue to call out "garbage" which isn't garbage, stink bombing future threads.

Quoting your entire post won't fix the logical flaw in that claim, or change its malicious intent. It won't make your post "really" about the thread topic instead of Dino if it includes a statement about the topic. You didn't tell the forum of your plans to to "call out" the MLK topic in the future. Flippant quip logic ("you actually proved [my point]") just follows one error with another.

(11-07-2019, 05:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It was at this moment that Dill lost all credibility.

Except you clearly don't.  You have your targets and you like to pretend you don't.  I get it, you're hardly the only person I deal with that calls out behavior in some while ignoring it in others.  Don't bother responding further btw, this discussion has reached the limits of any fruitful potential outcome.

LOL Did you just offer an impression in place of demonstration? Again?  You did didn't you!
Like if you just pronounce the words--then Presto, it's true!

So you FEEL I've lost credibility but cannot explain why, or demonstrate the tu quoque you impute to me. More "proof by assertion."

"Fruitful potential outcome" was never in the sights of someone constructing fallacious arguments to "call out Dino's garbage." That is merely a determination to accuse, which you've publicly vowed to continue.

No one else in the forum is doing this to anyone else, and with a "long track record" going back years and a promise to keep it up, so I'm hardly "ignoring it in others."

[*bfine32*]

(11-07-2019, 11:10 PM)Dill Wrote: 1. Dino calls one peaceful protest "disrespectful." You conclude he has thereby claimed ALL peaceful protests are disrespectful--a logically faulty conclusion--but you nevertheless claim "contradiction!" and tell the board your future plans for deploying your faulty conclusion. 

Quoting your entire post won't fix the logical flaw in that claim, or change its malicious intent. It won't make your post "really" about the thread topic instead of Dino if it includes a statement about the topic. You didn't tell the forum of your plans to to "call out" the MLK topic in the future. Flippant quip logic ("you actually proved [my point]") just follows one error with another.



2. No one else in the forum is doing this to anyone else, and with a "long track record" going back years, so I'm hardly "ignoring it in others."

1. Not that I've read the back and forth too closely, but if SSF suggests Dino contradicts himself then how could he also assert Dino considers all peaceful protests disrespectful?

2. Bullshit

[NATI BENGALS]

It would be nice if I could vote to take Reagan's name off the highway near me.

[*bfine32*]

(11-07-2019, 11:42 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: It would be nice if I could vote to take Reagan's name off the highway near me.

What was it named before?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-07-2019, 11:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1. Not that I've read the back and forth too closely, but if SSF suggests Dino contradicts himself then how could he also assert Dino considers all peaceful protests disrespectful?

This is logic.  Logic confuses some people.

Quote:2. Bullshit

This forum is a fascinating case study in selective outrage/blindness.

[NATI BENGALS]

(11-07-2019, 11:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What was it named before?

Cross County Highway. Until a group of Republicans decided to slap the name of the racist Hollywood actor who helped killed the middle class on it. 

[Dill]

(11-07-2019, 11:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1. Not that I've read the back and forth too closely, but if SSF suggests Dino contradicts himself then how could he also assert Dino considers all peaceful protests disrespectful?

2. Bullshit

LOL Let's start with the fact that he DID assert the bolded. You may have the logical order backwards here. First SSF asserts that Dino is FOR non-violent (peaceful) protest; then comes the claim that Dino now considers peaceful protest categorically disrespectful, which produces the contradiction SSF "finds" in Dino's posts.  Allow me to unpack it for you.

1. In post #4, SSF attributes to Dino a position on non-violent protest: "I thought you were FOR non-violent protest?" (my emphasis)
And that is because Dino, like you and I, did not agree with manner of the protest. But Dino is singled out for his history of "far left" posting.

2. In post #8, not directly responding to SSF, Dino then says this regarding the silent in-church protest:
"I still think it was disrespectful to walk in and just stand there, not even sit down when asked."

Note that Dino is making a particular claim about ONE protest in one church. Nothing proposed here about peaceful protest in general.

3. Then, here's how SSF can/does assert that Dino considers all peaceful protests disrespectful; in post #10 he responds to Dino's statement:
"So, peaceful, silent protest is disrespectful?  Got it.  I'll have to remember your position on this for when you contradict yourself later."

Note that SSF substitutes a universal/categorical claim for Dino's particular claim that peaceful protest in this one case was disrespectful. And note one cannot logically infer a blanket condemnation of peaceful protest from criticism of one specific (and unusual) example. That is a hasty generalization, a simple an error in inference. A logical error.* But for SSF's purposes, SSF's own logical error is now Dino's "position," not Dino's actual statement.

So then, SSF appears to assume one can't be both FOR non-violent protest in principle and AGAINST this particular non-violent protest in Kansas City without falling into contradiction. Dino is "for" peaceful protest but also says peaceful protest is "disrespectful" (which is to be against it).  Both claims can't be true at the same time.

This is problematic on a number of counts, starting with the faulty generalization, then the fact that both terms of the contradiction are claims attributed to Dino by SSF, not claims Dino has actually made. But that is one way of PROJECTING contradictions onto people--construct the contradictory statements yourself and then call out the other person for "his" bs. On another count, the stated intent to use the manufactured "contradiction" in future squabbles, to continue "calling out Dino's (projected) garbage" is disturbing, and the main reason I intervened here.

Not sure exactly what the "bullshit" refers to in your #2. SSF doesn't have a long track record of projecting false "positions" onto posters and then "calling them out"? That's an empirical question settled by a quick check of the record, but would take us off topic. And incur Mod disapproval. I'll go there, though, if it settles the issue for you. 

*another way to foreground the logical error. Imagine that in the smack forum you claim it was disrespectful for one Ravens fan to throw beer on a Bengals fan sitting in front of him in one incident at a game, and someone claims you just said "Ravens fans are disrespectful, got it" thereby making an inference for you that you didn't actually make. Then the person says you have always been respectful of Ravens fans before, so now you are contradicting your self. The person then threatens to remind you of this error when you contradict yourself in the future. Given his method, rest assured your stalker will have no trouble finding other "contradictions" as well.