filenotfound.jpg

This isn't Congress. We aren't passing legislation and we don't have to compromise to build consensus and get something passed that incorporates all viewpoints. We can just call racist bull**** what it is....racist bull****.

A terrible analogy. One person stopping driving has no effect. One person freeing twenty slaves has great effect.

The TJ debate was over as far as I am concerned the moment I got his defenders to admit that murdering him to free yourself, or even to free others would not be immoral.

And you can continue being ignored by most and making zero difference.

What difference have you made?

So again, how is it you don't consider everyone from that day and age scum for beating and raping children?

Exactly. The issue is making them aware that they are. I doubt the majority of people want to reinforce and bolster institutional racism but they are doing it nevertheless and showing them that (even if done in an abrasive way) may mean the good people that they are see the harm that their faulty beliefs are doing.

I only consider the child rapers scum. We only single out Jefferson because people go to bat for the other side.

My idea is fine at least in this thread. I haven't called anyone racist and taken pains to explain why people think they way they do.

Mostly it comes down to an ontological difference. Systematic racism doesn't exist, whatever racism there is are the atomistic feelings of individuals disconnected from anything else. Most 'racist' ideas collapse down to non racist ideas such as fear of crime, wanting law and order, not wanting to give handouts, etc. That's the conservative viewpoint on race relations in general. It's the genesis of ideas like the real racists are those who talk about race (because like actual racists, they believe structural racism exists unlike those who don't), that talking about race generates racism (because it creates the idea that there is something systematic) etc.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/26/us/fer...r-racial-bias/

First, I've made a difference in myself by seeking out others opinions here and elsewhere and honestly attempting to understand them. I've also been discussing these issues with folks around St. Louis, most of whom would immediately turn around and walk away if talked to in the manner you guys do, and I believe I've helped change some minds or at least give them something to think about that they otherwise would not have.

I think there is nothing more important than maintaining an open diologue on issues like these, bringing people together rather than driving them apart. It's called race relations for a reason. Similar to many of the problems between the West and the good people of Islam these days, yelling at them about our differences tends to make things worse, not better.

Okay, so since the age of consent was 7-12 throughout the country, and those who weren't actively raping children were condoning it, often paying a dowry in order to sell their own children to a rapist, you probably think everyone was scum back then, right? I'll go to bat for them if you want to argue the other side.

Yes. You made a very honest effort to understand Wookie's subsidized housing solution by explaining why the poors were more likely to steal because they were poor, would raise crime, and would drive down property values before unilaterally declaring it obviously wouldn't work.

I'm glad you bring this up, because it's a huge stumbling block in the conversation that many people don't understand, myself included. In fact, I'd argue it's so complex, few people understand it very well, including many of the people on this forum who claim to.

Why is the number of people who do terrible things relevant, here? Should I not say mean things about the Nazis because basically all Germans were Nazis back in the day, so we could hardly expect them to do anything else?

And I still believe that those concerns are the reason it wouldn't work. You keep acting like people worried that the poor are more likely to steal is some insane concern, when less economic inequality it's one of the main reasons socialized systems have so much less crime.

I mean, how could we expect Goebbels to not spread anti-semitic propaganda? If he didn't, he'd be out of a job! Plus, like everyone else was blaming the Jews in his time and place, so are you really willing to say that all those people were scum?

Does it help to say they have racist views, instead of they are racist?

Like "I'm not racist I just hold racist views" could be legitimised as a defence I guess.

It's not just racists who think black people moving to a neighbourhood makes it less safe. Its also normal not racists who believe racist things too.

So you think child rapists aren't scum? Maybe they are just normal people who do scummy things?

I'm just asking you to explain your reasons consistently. Jefferson lived in a time when most everyone did dispicible things like rape and beat children, yet you select one thing he did that was also dispicible, owning slaves, ignore his other accomplishments, among which were to set the stage for guys like Lincoln, who revered him, to free all the slaves, and declare he was scum. But you still won't call the rest of the people of that day scum who raped and beat children. That's inconsistent.

No, you keep interchanging "poor" with "black," which is why most of America ignores you.

I'll gladly defend people of the 18th century who considered 12-year-olds old enough to consent. It's a lot harder to defend those who considered 7 old enough though. That's just, ugh.

Holy ****. You still don't get the joke, because you're the subject of the joke. Incredible.

And what a democracy that was.

It's a work in progress. Most prefer it to the alternatives.

What's the fascination with the word "scum" here? You keep parroting it out.