What did you read and how does that support your opinion?

The post I responded to in the context of the discussion it involved. But please I have no interest going down rabbit hole discussions with you.

https://books.google.com/books?id=Yr...=PA29&ots=ets-
J2eK0i&focus=viewport&dq=child+sex+1800s&output=ht ml_text.

Read up. On pg 26-27 there is some interesting information on how society viewed sex with young girls in the 19th century. It was legal and considered acceptable, non-deviant behavior. Child prostitution was common.

Again, I don't care because you obviously haven't followed the whole conversation and don't know what you're talking about. But thanks for the advice.

This is a far more important discussion to have than BruceZ BruceZ BruceZ . Nobody reading about BruceZ can do jack crack about it. Anybody reading about modern slavery can make a choice about the chocolate (or other stuff) they acquire.

Let's get back to the topic of your faulty BS detector. You realize, of course, that some of Jefferson's slaves were his own children and that Sally Hemmings was his sister-in-law. Just how dumb do you think he was? So these people were smart enough to build a giant mansion for Jefferson to live in, but not to take care of themselves?

Listen, race (and racism) and slavery were mutually constitutive. It is more accurate to say that slavery created black people (also a bunch of other races we don't use anymore) then the reverse. Note that some of Jefferson's kids, freed after he died (and how convenient that the slaves were suddenly better off the very day TJ died! How did he know?), apparently changed their identity and magically became white.

Everyone knew what they were doing was an atrocity, period. They couldn't even bring themselves to mention slavery in the Constitution, for Christ's sake. Why do you think that is? Think the term they use in article 1 is "other persons" - dosen't that send a chill down your spine?

The Chiefsplanet DC forum is sort of like the parallel universe version of this forum.

Yet it was still commonplace, and even Europeans who had outlawed it still gladly sold us slaves. How do you think they rationalized that? Could it be they didn't hold freedom and individual rights quite as highly as we do today? Is there a reason the Declaration of Independence was such a groundbreaking document?

Yeah, this is unbelievably sad. Do you have any links? Is there "good, free chocolate" I can buy?

I don't need to follow the whole conversation to tell you that posting this

In response to this

makes you look like a ****ing idiot. And this is a public forum if you only want people to read your posts who are aquainted with the entire discussion you should probably take it to PM. Now you are perfectly entitled to ignore this if you wish to continue posting in a manner that makes you look bad.

Sorry I don't follow your posting rules and it makes me look bad.

If you wish for your condescension to hit it's target you must try harder, or do better as I'm not convinced that trying harder does it for you.

Again, very sorry. And you are very smart and probably handsome.

I'm not sure whether you think that is trying harder or doing better.

This is a discussion of racism in NAM, it's essentially concerned with the systemic abuse of Africa Americans, you don't seem to be winning much support for your positions and that is likely related to your posts being rubbish. Now you can try and resurrect a conversation with Sklansky over Jefferson and slavery but if you do this you have to expect other people to reply to specific posts as they read them and the one I have posted above is rubbish in any context.

Fair enough. It's been a long derail. Anyway, as far as winning support for "my positions," I'm defending the position re Jefferson held by most mainstream historians, and trying to digest the reasons they should be discarded in favor of the less popular stance. It's DS that needs to explain why most people should change their minds about TJ, and so far I'm not convinced, because as most people understand, that was a different time.

And likewise, most of the positions we have been discussing re racism here are not "my positions," but the position of mainstream Americans. I'm trying to get someone here to explain like I'm a "10 y/o, or mild ******" why they believe most of the country disagrees with them on racism, and how they are doing anything to change those minds.

Why do people who benefit from privilege and are not harmed by institutional racism disagree with something that might involve monetary redress to others?

That's the tough case that you can't crack?

OK. People generally prefer to have money go to things that directly help them, not those that directly help others. People also generally want to believe whatever success they have is, as much as possible, solely do to their own work/efforts and, if others aren't as successful, its because they haven't put in as much work efforts. People generally don't want to believe that they have inherent advantages over other people that might effect outcomes.

Its basic cognitive biases. Not that interesting, not that hard to figure out.

Also, "mainstream" Americans means white Americans right? Because Im pretty sure minority Americans have different views, overall, than yours.

Hahaha. Interesting way to handle an entrenched contemptuous disposition.

I think that explains motive pretty well, and I'm sure it's true. So does that mean everything people disagree with you about racism is obviously due to the above, case closed?

No.

I did what I could to skim through this. I don't believe it supports your contention that everybody was engaging in it and considered it normal.

But anyway, to bring this to a close (for me anyway), if you can find examples of well respected societal figures who were diddling kids, I would be happy to agree that they are in fact also pond scum.

Meta dropping fact bombs ITT.

It didn't need to be everybody doing it. If you believe that book, plenty of well-respected men partook and it wasn't frowned upon. Society simply had different ideas about adulthood and different ideas of how girls should be treated. Ideas we would view with great contempt and disgust today, like we do with slavery.

You bring up an interesting thought though. Suppose it was found that Lincoln dabbled in the youngsters before his marriage. You would dismiss his great deeds and declare him pond scum?

Mainstream America has a prejudice against African Americans, this may not be conscious but I'd be shocked if it didn't exist. From the little I know of cognitive bias, the representation of African Americans and the discrimination African Americans face it seems certain that there is a bias.

I've also posted in this thread that I do not consider all racist beliefs equally morally reprehensible but I do consider them all wrong and worth addressing. I think you have had answers to your question and that is that the majority of white people think black people aren't discriminated against is less important than the fact that black people are discriminated against and believe they are subject to discrimination. A lot of our bias or prejudice happens without us consciously intended to treat or consider someone differently. A cop who truly believes that his job is to serve all people equally well and one who consciously decides not to discriminate on race may still act in a racist manner if he treats a black person differently than he would a white whether this difference is accessible to him or not.

I don't think white people are the people we need to ask to ascertain whether racism is still an issue.

I have also made this point before but I think you mistake balancing good and bad views for actually deciding that on balance the bad views are bad. I don't think we need to aspire to balance in the first sense but should in the second. I think you try and balance on the first.

Interestingly he ditched this approach and actually engages me next post up. Maybe he anticipated this response and considered if you agreed it must be a mistake.

Well you kept saying everybody was doing it.

But anyway yeah, if Lincoln was sexing up 10 y/o's for sure -- pond scum.

I'm not sure what the age cut-off would be. That's a trickier question imo, because of the different times, and also because the question of when a child is actually old enough to meaningfully consent.

Doesn't mean you couldn't acknowledge that such a person also did some great things. Is that your hang up here? Sklansky and everyone else already agreed that Jefferson did some great things.