One quote does not undermine what he actively preached and arguably the rhetoric for which he was shot for. Secondly, how does any of that undermine the moral pursuit of equality before the law? Whether we like it or not, the world is dominated by party organisation.Jamcie Kerbizz said:"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character" looks like mr Freeman lives up to Martin Luther King Jr's words and carries on his legacy. Although he preached colour-blindness, so in current 'activist' standards making him a racist had he been white. I would not bring up this american civil rights hero trying to justify anyone's actions right now. Simply because as you noticed he is dead. He did not have a chance to see how things play out. Neither with civil rights fight nor with states trying to implement socialism and communism in practice. He did not see Mugabe's reign of terror or indifference and cowerdice of Dutch soldiers in face of genocide in Srebrenica. Neither I or you can tell how that would shape him. I just hope that neither of it would break him and make give up on his dream.
And when it represents uniform patterns of incorrect attitudes set against a person simply for who they are? That's garbage and you know it. When you have institutional disenfranchisement written into the laws and its praxis. In 39 US states, a trans person has to consider coming out of the closet solely because their freedom of contract isn't protected in housing, education, employment and even medical care. You have government legislation that allows businesses and private individuals to perform unfair dismissal of contracts based simply on sexual preference and gender identity.No it's don't cry 'I'm going to die!' because you got standard coke instead of light. Sure it's a problem to you and sure there could be worse situation than this. Just explain you got treated wrong (because hey unlike kids dying out of drought in Africa, you have all the possibility to do so, even if sometimes you get to hear 'f-ck off' instead of getting new coke). If you aren't complete dick about it, there's higher chance you may get a new coke... without a spit in it.
Community engagement has been a potent tactic. Perversion of equality before the law, it requires community engagement. That gives you the most chance to get a new coke.
No, but it does mean that I signed up with the explicit agreement I'd help kill for the state (actually war-like, not hyperbole). And I've seen people take that with a zeal far and beyond merely a contractual agreement of service I signed into.War-like not military. Here we have conscription for males so everyone able is or was in the force, so I don't see why you bring it up. Being in military doesn't mean you've been to war which you try to imply.
Or you can just own up to your hyperbole. Please show me these 'war-like' words. I'm sure I can find more public attitudes in my living experience that outstrips it. Ones that actually advocate for hostilities far and beyond a trans activist demanding equal opportunity in housing, employment, education and access to medical care.That's true what you say about nationalists to a degree (some patriots are nationalists but not extremists). Extremists/fundamentalists do act violently because they are minority and eventually they don't see any other possibility to change majority but to enforce their 'rightous' way on them.
Failure to provide as such does violate multiple human rights articles and conditions set aside in the ICCPR.
What seems more pathetic is that people use moral relativism as if to whitewash systemic inequality. Just because it's worse in other places does not make community engagement of people bad. It's the whole reason the West isn't like those other places. After all, in living memory, the West has been just as atrocious a place to live. If you recognize systemic inequality exists, you're not moral for pointing out that atrocities happen elsewhere as a reason to stop people fighting for collective agency against that which seeks to hurt them.Either way perhaps war-like wasn't a suitable choice of words. Confrontational and needlessly pathetic would be better. Talks about 'fights' and 'struggle' and 'systemic opressions'... when they live in countries offering them civil rights protection and possibility to take their case to court when it gets slighted. That's like telling that I fought a noble battle against tooth ache, suffering struggles on my way to state funded dentist... ok I took it too far the other way but you get the point I hope.
But peaceful revolution requires community engagement. It is peaceful, because people are able to collectively organise and protest. If Marcos just executed people left, right and center, the PPR would have become a shooting war. You're labouring under a false idea that people demanding equality start violent revolution. It is more often the case where it is the state that overreacts to a perceived threat to its existence.Absolutely! I should've just say be careful not to strike up a revolution where peaceful evolution is already in works.
People ridiculing your goals and methods? Good, play along. Perhaps reflect on why they did that not just assert they are vile enemies (sexist, homophobes etc.) you need to confront.
When governments overreact, that's when bodies hit the floor. We've seen this time and again. Has very little to do with blatantly homophobic/xenophobic/tranbsphobic/etc people being called out on their garbage.
And since when did internet outrage equate war? Also, what's an unnecessary division? Frankly, your arguments above prove that community engagement is a better answer. Apathy and whitewashing gets people nowhere.I'm pointing toward 'outrage' over hashtag prank campaign. In my opinion counterproductive and fuelling confrontational sentiments whereas it could have been treated as nothing more than a stupid goof.
I don't even know or care, which of 'you here' are LGBT activists. Nor it matters, since its just a label and another unnecessary division line.