this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2026
406 points (99.3% liked)

AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND

2671 readers
413 users here now

This is a page for anything that's amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.

♦ ♦ ♦

RULES

❶ Each player gets six cards, except the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.

❷ Posts, comments, and participants must be amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.

❸ This page uses Reverse Lemmy-Points™, or 'bad karma'. Please downvote all posts and comments.

❹ Posts, comments, and participants that are not amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound will be removed.

❺ This is a non-smoking page. If you must smoke, please click away and come back later.

❻ Don't be a dick.

Please also abide by the instance rules.

♦ ♦ ♦

Can't get enough? Visit my blog.

♦ ♦ ♦

Please consider donating to Lemmy and Lemmy.World.

$5 a month is all they ask — an absurdly low price for a Lemmyverse of news, education, entertainment, and silly memes.

 

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 28 points 1 week ago

The quote comes from King's famous Letter from a Birmingham Jail (he later paraphrased this quote in a 1965 interview with Playboy magazine lmao):

Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was seen sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, because a higher moral law was involved. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

[–] FerretyFever0@fedia.io 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is how I feel whenever I hear about the Constitution being broken. I don't care all that much about it, it's a piece of paper. It should obviously be folIowed when possible. I believe in the personal rights outlined in the Bill of Rights (and many more that weren't), but sometimes it's okay to bend or break some of the rules. Lincoln blockading the South was unconstitutional, remember that. I care about immoral things being done. I care about people being kidnapped.

[–] KombatWombat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

It's more about stability. Yes, the piece of paper does not have any more authority than we choose to grant it, but giving credence to the law consistently lets people understand what to expect from society. They see it effectively determining people's behavior, and can feel safer so long as it looks out for their needs. In this way it acts as a stronger barrier to future bad behavior.

But when people are able to disregard the law when it doesn't seem like a big deal, it makes it easier for bad actors to circumvent it later on. A rule doesn't mean much when you just ignore it whenever it becomes inconvenient. One day it may just be slacking on a Miranda warning, but that can spiral into much larger trespasses on people's rights if the latter are no more illegal than the former. And so a threat to one part is a threat to the whole.

It's also worth pointing out that the law isn't expected to ever be perfect, or static. It should update to better reflect the values of society over time. And there are legal ways for people to avoid punishment even when they violate a law. A jury can refuse to convict a defendant. The president can pardon someone. Plea deals and prosecutor discretion can mean a charge is dropped. The convicted person can appeal a guilty verdict based on due process violations. A statute of limitations or other restriction can render them immune.

For Lincoln's blockade specifically, the Supreme Court ruled it as constitutional when it was challenged, and Congress later retroactively approved of it. So it was legal, based on the way we define what that means.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

This is somewhat false. Not everything was legal, such as the beer hall psuch. And the bad things that were legal were only legal in the German legal system. International law still made them illegal.

[–] kurikai@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

only illegal because germany lost the war

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Fair. But [the actions were] still illegal under different contexts. I think that a lot of liberals tend to assume that "the law" is consistent in more ways than it is (~0 ways).

[–] kurikai@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

if germany won the war. international law would not be the same as it is now. laws only work if people agree they should work.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 2 points 1 week ago
[–] theolodis@feddit.org 1 points 1 week ago

A lot of what has been prosecuted in the Nuremberg trials has been made illegal after the war by the London Charter. So in theory it wasn't illegal to invade neutral countries.

[–] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social -1 points 1 week ago

yep. This is also why as much as liberals love to helm his anarchist praxis as the ones 🇺🇲 should only uphold, MLKJr wasn't your comrade. He was ours.