MLK could have thought any number of great or terrible things. In some contexts it can be highly appropriate to mention them.
In my opinion, when someone mentions MLK in the context of the "I have a dream" speech, its clear to me that the personhood of MLK or his beliefs are really not up for discussion. MLK is a piece of iconography, a historical reference point, for the color-blind, racially-neutral position. Any discussion of MLK's beliefs distract from the point being made and ultimately does not change minds.
It's because people disagree with your assumption that you are completely correct, but I know you're already not here to discuss but to "fact-check".
There are reasons why specific pieces of history stick out and resonate. His "I have a dream" speech is what I remembered most because that is what ultimately, I believe, actually played a role in truly removing a lot of pervasive racism and discrimination that used to exist.
It certainly helped me from a young age really have a worldview that people are who they advertise themselves as, not by the visual identity I associate them with. It's never been an issue until people like you popped up out of nowhere saying I'm the most racist person alive because I don't treat people differently because of their race.
> 'I believe the path toward justice is a long arc. Safety is not just an officer with a badge and a gun,' AOC said. 'Our [police budget] is too high,' she added, citing a $6 billion figure for New York's department. [src](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/aoc-defends-defund-t...)
This is also backed by multiple cities literally cutting police funding. [LA](https://abc7.com/defund-the-police-lapd-los-angeles-mayor-er...) [NYC](https://www.policemag.com/562124/new-york-city-cuts-police-b...)
Did the budget drop? Then it was defunded, which is accurate. It can be defunded and reallocated and still be accurately stated by "defund the police".
You're arguing that what people say isn't what they really mean to say. Almost insinuating that it always requires an "expert" or "scholarly" opinion in order to truly interpret the true meaning of what someone says.
"The sky is blue"
"Well he meant to say the sky is clear, but it's the reflection of light from the water in the air that makes it appear blue, but it's not actually blue"
Meanwhile if you look outside observe you notice the sky is blue, validating the original statement. There wasn't any depth to the statement other than "The sky is blue"
People can be forgiven for thinking this quote by MLK Jr. advocates colorblindness because that's exactly what it seems to say. It is only when you apply a scholarly interpretation do you arrive at his words being used "in the exact opposite way they were intended".
This strikes me of "Yes, well it says 'Defund the Police' but what it actually means is.."