Your opinion is narrow-minded, irrational, and emotional- that is clear and that is why you mistakenly call Bruce's stuff that was posted racist and continue to repeatedly do so.

Hey look Dids is a liar who calls people who are more educated and conscientious than racism and prejudice than he is liars. Is he jealous? Is it an inferiority complex? I think is most likely tribalistic territorial pissing and the obvious smug arrogance.

We're talking about how we feel about people. Get that through your head. I don't think it's right to own slaves or rape anyone. But if you're judging how you feel about an individual based on your belief system, when they have a completely different one accepted by their culture, you're leaving out important information. You can't realistically claim you would act differently if in their shoes.

This is a lie, by the way. Bruce never once said his posts were racist. He said they were badly worded, he said that they were mere "right wing talking points" that he was tossing out, and he said they were not his views, but he never once said that his posts were bigoted, prejudiced, or racist.

FoldnDark ITT claiming he would have been raping slaves back in the day or if he currently lived in somewhere like Pakistan. I'm sure Bruce is so glad to have you on his team.

It is a mistake for even Bruce to call his posts racist. Content quality, intent, and context are all factors in forming the classification of racist acts.

Also it stands to good reason that for something to be racist, a racist has to create it. Bruce is not a racist, so the stuff he posted is not racist.

spank cares more for people who get called racist than victim's of racism.

thank you for illustrating the one-dimensional thought process you employ to everyone.

Which victims of racism?

Are you saying BruceZ victimized Mr wookie by philosophizing in the philosophy forum or that he victimized long deceased slaves by discussing the thinking of their era?

I think he did, but I'm not going to look for it. It's possible I'm confusing his admission for mine. Either way, I don't think there's any question many of the defenses of slavery from that time were based on racism, that shouldn't stop someone from defending people from a time and culture where racism was accepted as the norm.

Racists generally aren't that complicated.

Cant answer this without knowing his math aptitude. DUCY?

Here's the thing, though. A whole ****load of people in the 1700s had figured out that slavery was morally reprehensible! Abolitionist ideas were not invented in 1850. Somersett v. Stewart was a highly prominent case that no doubt the likes of Washington, Jefferson, and other slave owning elites in the colonies would have heard about. For a forum that "gets to the bottom of the issues," you did a profoundly ****ty job. You took Jefferson and de Toqueville at face value, and gave no examination of any counterargument from the day.

Yeah, slavery was accepted by Jefferson and his peers. That's because, despite having heard arguments against slavery, they decided to say **** that, let's keep making money and raping. We don't have to conclude that Jefferson was just a product of his culture, esp. when there was more to the ideas of the day than those of the morally bankrupt.

Maybe Jefferson was just play acting.

If only SMP had a contrarian who could play act as a non-racist and post some wikipedia articles or something.

Generally, you are mistaken.

Racist thinking is generally not complicated as racism is a typical mistake of the obvious. Skin color is no more significant in what makes up a person than the color of their eyes.

It's almost as if you didn't actually read the thread. If you had, you may have noticed the many other arguments made for and against. It's almost like you're taking this all out of context.

Behold MrWookie's narrow and politically convenient view clouded by his own moral outrage and appeals to emotion. He is irrationally angry at dead people.

Racism is not entirely real is like the moral of the story.

http://www.vox.com/2014/10/10/694346...content=friday

You are going from bad to worse on this issue. It's a difference of opinion. Evidence was presented (ad nauseam). Some found this evidence to be persuasive and some apparently did not.

That you feel your opponents are making a "mistake" doesn't make it so. Endlessly calling your opponents on this issue narrow-minded, irrational, emotional, bullies, bigots, liars, and hypocrites isn't doing anything to move the ball forward. It certainly undermines any impression of moral high-ground you feel you may have on this issue, and impedes the substantive discussion that might otherwise be possible.

Hard-hitting empiricism ITT.

Ah, no wonder Spanks goes to bat for every racist he sees. He thinks racism is over.

"race is a social construct" does not mean the same thing as "racism does not exist".

No, I read the thread, duder.

These posts were all accepted uncritically, that the thinking of the day was such that slavery was OK, and no one had any idea otherwise. That's patently false. No text was spent on discussion abolitionist ideas that were also prevalent in the day.

Although I did miss this doozy the first time around:

SMP, ladies and gents. There's an even more vile post that Truthsayer elected to delete.

Obviously if you absolutely reject the contrarian issue then you are going to get the answer you want but you have no basis for doing so, its just your opinion that you stick to doggedly even as the reasons you claim for believing it have weakened.

There's no resolution. You insist you are right despite the fact you are quite possibly wrong. Others have given Bruce the benefit of the doubt, maybe more so now as there's more evidence for the contrarian side but you seem to have no interest in being reasonable about this