Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Does Whining About Political Correctness in a Racism Debate Correlate to Being a Racist? Does Whining About Political Correctness in a Racism Debate Correlate to Being a Racist?

09-23-2014 , 02:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl
I'll skip the rest but the last part. Ummm yea you have a responsibility to find out where you're information is coming from, or else you going to constantly bombarded with people saying the line of reasoning with regards to the Civil War is pretty congruent with what a bunch of racists said. If that doesn't bother you then oh well you just have to get used to it.
To ignore all the ad hominem you have heaped on this discussion, I will ask this simply and directly.

I made what I believe to be a factual assessment of Lincoln's intentions. You have presented nothing in disagreement other than your opinion. Do you have one single shred of evidence to present?
09-23-2014 , 02:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexM
MY INFORMATION IS COMING FROM THE FACTS THAT I HAVE SEEN. IF YOU HAVE OTHER FACTS BEYOND JUST YOUR PERSONAL OPINION, PLEASE SHOW THEM TO ME.

Seriously. Cite me some evidence that shows that what I've said is wrong. Stop trying to make this about dumbass racists and give me evidence. That's what I need to form a different opinion. EVIDENCE. All you harping on about what racists think is completely and totally irrelevant. I want HARD FACTS.
Sure, it's a completely legitimate libertarian idea that the South had no right to secede because it's argument to do so hinged on the absolute subjugation of another. It's also a paleo libertarian idea that the South had a right to secede regardless of whether or not it was oppressing people and the oppression of people was eventually going to go out of style anyways. Or a third way would be to say that regardless of the situation the outcome of the Civil War was a good one and one should save a libertarian analysis for when it's more apt, like the present day.

I mean I've already explained to you in more detail than you ever bothered to read yourself about the political situation during the lead up to the Civil War if those facts don't convince you that you're particular line of reasoning is silly, I shouldn't bother with anything else.
09-23-2014 , 03:00 PM
Your explanations are hearsay. Provide evidence.

Also, I seriously DGAF about libertarians.
09-23-2014 , 03:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexM
To ignore all the ad hominem you have heaped on this discussion, I will ask this simply and directly.

I made what I believe to be a factual assessment of Lincoln's intentions. You have presented nothing in disagreement other than your opinion. Do you have one single shred of evidence to present?
Alex, I just explained to you in more detail then you ever bothered to read yourself. My assessment is that the dichotomy of "Lincoln fought to free the slaves vs. The South was bad but the North was really bad too because hargle bargle" is a particularly mangled reading of the Civil War and a particularly mangled reading that's very much in line with what was invented after the Civil War by Southern intellectuals and the grafted into the libertarian movement. None of those is a ad homenim. I don't deligitimize the Lost Cause arguments just because they trace back to a series of Southern former slave owners who wanted to redeem the South, I discount it because it's a particularly bad reading of history as the Civil War thread showed.

Last edited by Huehuecoyotl; 09-23-2014 at 03:10 PM.
09-23-2014 , 03:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexM
Secession is a power. The power over secession is not granted to the feds. Thus, it is left to either the states or the people. It's really very straightforward.
This is only true if secession is not prohibited by the Constitution. Which it is.
09-23-2014 , 03:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexM
Secession is a power. The power over secession is not granted to the feds. Thus, it is left to either the states or the people. It's really very straightforward.
If construed this way it would give the states the power to take away all the powers the constitution gives the federal government. Secession= not going to follow the constitution any longer.
09-23-2014 , 03:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl
I mean sure ideally we'd have a Gran Torino cranky old guy learns new ways through the power of caring for minorities montage, but it's a web forum.
To add to the appeal to the obvious, a web forum is a social environment, rather than a game show or sitcom.

Has it occurred to you the universal shame and shun method to provoke racists to have personal inner-change is very similar to how some social conservatives deal with their gay teen children?

More broadly, have you considered the similarity with methods related to social darwinism?

What happens when it is not a racist who is shamed and shunned?

What happens when one person with the correct knowledge, understanding, and practice can totally disrupt it?

What happens when it is taken to racist echo- chamber environments and used as proof to discredit humanitarian political labels?

This is may be a web forum, but it is not a fantasy. This is all happening on earth; in the real world where the internet exists and nobody knows who the lurkers really are.
09-23-2014 , 03:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
... Injecting race/racism into discussions where it doesn't belong...
How many significant discussions regarding today's US (or the English speaking world for that matter) don't have a racial component? While I'm sure we can agree on a few... I would hope you would agree that they are almost as rare as hen's teeth.

As I mentioned above, those who enjoy White Privilege have an intellectual 'blind-spot' when it comes to this topic. Our MSM and for-profit culture has a vested interest in generating that 'blind spot'. Just like safe driving necessitates doing a head check on actual blind spots... so too those involved in genuine conversation need to do an intellectual 'head check' on this intellectual 'blind spot'.

Explicitly examining if there is a racial (or sexist) component should be SOP. There is literally no reasonable conversation where it is improper to do so. People of good faith, regardless of what #team they are on, should be happy to examine this cultural 'blind spot'... and if there's nothing there, then it's been agreed there isn't any racial component.

Contrast this to team #whine-about-the-PC-police. They wanna preemptively and unilaterally decide what conversations have a racial component, and claim that in all other conversations discussions of race "don't belong". And if everyone else doesn't bow down to their arbitrary and pernicious unilateral declarations, they'll whine like stuck pigs about the 'PC Police', and do everything in their power to derail and stifle the entire conversation.

This is so predictable I can flow-chart it.

Code:
X: Voter ID is the nuts !!!
                        |
   -------------------------------------
   |                                   |
Y: "You're Racist"     Z: "Voter ID is racist"
   |                                   |
   -------------------------------------
                     |
  --------------------------------------
  |                                    |
X:"ZOMG PC Police !!!1!"   X: "Plz explain this alleged racism"
  |                                    |
(conversation over)         Y,Z: "Sure, we feel..."
                                       |
                                    (conversation continues)
09-23-2014 , 03:34 PM
There's way more Lost Cause **** from Alex than just from the Civil War megathread, of course, because Alex is a pretty typical paleoconservative white supremacist type. He's doing this weird thing where he denies it now but won't admit he was wrong or misguided, which is just lol. He consistently rewrites what happens in these debates so that he is the victim of just vicious slurs by me(and me alone). Dude, if you admitted you were wrong about that **** this would all go away.

Alex, everyone thinks you're a racist, because you constantly post like one. Like we talked about in your big meltdown thread like a year ago, you could try to stop posting like a racist if getting called racist bothers you so much. Instead we get **** like what you're doing in this thread, furiously denouncing anyone getting called racist for anything. Which is absolutely in character for you. It's really your defining characteristic, you're the guy who throws incoherent tantrums when people talk about racism in a way that reflects poorly on white people(especially Southern white people).
09-23-2014 , 03:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spanktehbadwookie
To add to the appeal to the obvious, a web forum is a social environment, rather than a game show or sitcom.

Has it occurred to you the universal shame and shun method to provoke racists to have personal inner-change is very similar to how some social conservatives deal with their gay teen children?

More broadly, have you considered the similarity with methods related to social darwinism?

What happens when it is not a racist who is shamed and shunned?

What happens when one person with the correct knowledge, understanding, and practice can totally disrupt it?

What happens when it is taken to racist echo- chamber environments and used as proof to discredit humanitarian political labels?

This is may be a web forum, but it is not a fantasy. This is all happening on earth; in the real world where the internet exists and nobody knows who the lurkers really are.
Like why does the National Review get all the fun?
09-23-2014 , 03:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie
This is only true if secession is not prohibited by the Constitution. Which it is.
Are you going to cite that?
09-23-2014 , 03:41 PM
Alex- I agree to disagree about state secession. At the least I give credit to the principle of forming a more perfect union. I take that as an implication of responsibility to seek unity rather than division to manage social problems and disagreements, however practical and possible.
09-23-2014 , 03:41 PM
Note that the Civil War was so totally NOT about slavery and oppression of blacks that when reconstruction ended the insurgent remainders of the Confederacy(the Klan, lynch mobs, etc.) promptly set about...

murdering black people, overthrowing democratic governments that were considered too black-friendly, preventing blacks from voting, etc.

We already went over this **** repeatedly. There's no argument or debate on any of this ****. There's the side that's right, and then there's the side that got too far gone into Ron Paul's cult of personality to discuss this **** with any sort of reason or objectivity. Alex's side is the latter there. Dude fell hard for ole' Grandpa Goldbug. Because he's an unlettered racist piece of ****, and those people really like learning about how the CRA was unjustifiable centralized tyranny.
09-23-2014 , 03:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl
Alex, I just explained to you in more detail then you ever bothered to read yourself. My assessment is that the dichotomy of "Lincoln fought to free the slaves vs. The South was bad but the North was really bad too because hargle bargle" is a particularly mangled reading of the Civil War and a particularly mangled reading that's very much in line with what was invented after the Civil War by Southern intellectuals and the grafted into the libertarian movement. None of those is a ad homenim. I don't deligitimize the Lost Cause arguments just because they trace back to a series of Southern former slave owners who wanted to redeem the South, I discount it because it's a particularly bad reading of history as the Civil War thread showed.
You haven't provided any evidence. You explaining things isn't evidence. The evidence I have supports my conclusion. I need evidence that at least puts some reasonable doubt in the evidence I have from things that Lincoln has actually said. If you can't provide that sort of evidence, everything you're saying is pure conjecture. Please provide evidence if you want me to take you seriously. Evidence is all I have EVER asked for on this subject. I have absolutely no vested interest in believing anything about Lincoln one way or the other. I merely state the conclusions that I am forced to come to based on the evidence I have at my disposal. If you have other evidence, I really, really want to hear it. Until then, you have nothing.
09-23-2014 , 03:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogallalabob
If construed this way it would give the states the power to take away all the powers the constitution gives the federal government. Secession= not going to follow the constitution any longer.
No, the process for giving and taking away powers to the federal government is outlined in the Constitution.
09-23-2014 , 03:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
There's way more Lost Cause **** from Alex than just from the Civil War megathread, of course, because Alex is a pretty typical paleoconservative white supremacist type. He's doing this weird thing where he denies it now but won't admit he was wrong or misguided, which is just lol. He consistently rewrites what happens in these debates so that he is the victim of just vicious slurs by me(and me alone). Dude, if you admitted you were wrong about that **** this would all go away.

Alex, everyone thinks you're a racist, because you constantly post like one. Like we talked about in your big meltdown thread like a year ago, you could try to stop posting like a racist if getting called racist bothers you so much. Instead we get **** like what you're doing in this thread, furiously denouncing anyone getting called racist for anything. Which is absolutely in character for you. It's really your defining characteristic, you're the guy who throws incoherent tantrums when people talk about racism in a way that reflects poorly on white people(especially Southern white people).
Absolutely no one thinks I'm a racist except possibly you might have convinced yourself after repeating the lie for so long. I've had these same discussions on other forums and never once been called a racist on any of them. Do not think for a second that anyone is buying your lies.

And you should really be more respectful to your betters.
09-23-2014 , 03:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spanktehbadwookie
Alex- I agree to disagree about state secession. At the least I give credit to the principle of forming a more perfect union. I take that as an implication of responsibility to seek unity rather than division to manage social problems and disagreements, however practical and possible.
This is an interesting conversation to have, but it's not one I want to get into at the moment. My sole purpose at this time is to defend myself from Fly's personal attacks and lies.
09-23-2014 , 03:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexM
Are you going to cite that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
Spoiler:


And BTW, what difference does it make what Lincoln's personal motives were. The US didn't start that war, they just ended it. The CRA started The War of Southern Agression to continue slavery... that's all that matters.

Other than that... why don't you start another thread instead of polluting this one rehashing the Lost Cause derp ??

Last edited by Shame Trolly !!!1!; 09-23-2014 at 03:55 PM.
09-23-2014 , 03:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
Note that the Civil War was so totally NOT about slavery and oppression of blacks that when reconstruction ended the insurgent remainders of the Confederacy(the Klan, lynch mobs, etc.) promptly set about...

murdering black people, overthrowing democratic governments that were considered too black-friendly, preventing blacks from voting, etc.

We already went over this **** repeatedly. There's no argument or debate on any of this ****. There's the side that's right, and then there's the side that got too far gone into Ron Paul's cult of personality to discuss this **** with any sort of reason or objectivity. Alex's side is the latter there. Dude fell hard for ole' Grandpa Goldbug. Because he's an unlettered racist piece of ****, and those people really like learning about how the CRA was unjustifiable centralized tyranny.
You're contradicting yourself here. Either I'm a racist or I was duped by Ron Paul. It doesn't make sense to try to claim both.

Also, I have never once claimed that the Confederacy wasn't about slavery, so why are you so intent on perpetuating this lie? What is it that you're so desperate to hide that you have to keep lying about my positions on this subject?
09-23-2014 , 03:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexM
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Pretty obvious to anyone who isn't trying to mangle the Constitution for their own purposes.
Alex, here's something from Wiki:

Quote:
Concerned that the new compact might not sufficiently safeguard states' rights, the anti-federalists sought to insert into the New York ratification message language to the effect that "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."[29] The Madison federalists opposed this, with Hamilton, a delegate at the Convention, reading aloud in response a letter from James Madison stating: "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever" [emphasis added]. Hamilton and John Jay then told the Convention that in their view, reserving "a right to withdraw [was] inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."[29] The New York convention ultimately ratified the Constitution without including the "right to withdraw" language proposed by the anti-federalists.
So you are pretty obviously wrong.
09-23-2014 , 03:55 PM
So, when the Supreme Court has overturned itself in the past, your position is that the Constitution actually changed?

Regardless, this whole secession thing is completely irrelevant anyway. The fact that I believe it is all that is relevant. Which side is "correct" is not. As I'm sure you're aware, both sides are likely correct based on different points of view.
09-23-2014 , 03:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexM
You haven't provided any evidence. You explaining things isn't evidence. The evidence I have supports my conclusion. I need evidence that at least puts some reasonable doubt in the evidence I have from things that Lincoln has actually said. If you can't provide that sort of evidence, everything you're saying is pure conjecture. Please provide evidence if you want me to take you seriously. Evidence is all I have EVER asked for on this subject. I have absolutely no vested interest in believing anything about Lincoln one way or the other. I merely state the conclusions that I am forced to come to based on the evidence I have at my disposal. If you have other evidence, I really, really want to hear it. Until then, you have nothing.
Really? I've explained to you the political climate wasn't set up in your imagined libertarian context. Lincoln fought to preserve the union and for an ideology that would free the slaves by the war's end. Too bad Lincoln didn't live to see it done. Your imagined libertarian reasons for the justification for Southern sucession were invented after the Civil War by racists. That you're so steeped into the Lost Cause to see it isn't anyone's fault but your own. For the record I don't think your racist, just falling for racist shtick.

Last edited by Huehuecoyotl; 09-23-2014 at 04:02 PM.
09-23-2014 , 03:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shame Trolly !!!1!
How many significant discussions regarding today's US (or the English speaking world for that matter) don't have a racial component? While I'm sure we can agree on a few... I would hope you would agree that they are almost as rare as hen's teeth.

As I mentioned above, those who enjoy White Privilege have an intellectual 'blind-spot' when it comes to this topic. Our MSM and for-profit culture has a vested interest in generating that 'blind spot'. Just like safe driving necessitates doing a head check on actual blind spots... so too those involved in genuine conversation need to do an intellectual 'head check' on this intellectual 'blind spot'.

Explicitly examining if there is a racial (or sexist) component should be SOP. There is literally no reasonable conversation where it is improper to do so. People of good faith, regardless of what #team they are on, should be happy to examine this cultural 'blind spot'... and if there's nothing there, then it's been agreed there isn't any racial component.

Contrast this to team #whine-about-the-PC-police. They wanna preemptively and unilaterally decide what conversations have a racial component, and claim that in all other conversations discussions of race "don't belong". And if everyone else doesn't bow down to their arbitrary and pernicious unilateral declarations, they'll whine like stuck pigs about the 'PC Police', and do everything in their power to derail and stifle the entire conversation.

This is so predictable I can flow-chart it.

Code:
X: Voter ID is the nuts !!!
                        |
   -------------------------------------
   |                                   |
Y: "You're Racist"     Z: "Voter ID is racist"
   |                                   |
   -------------------------------------
                     |
  --------------------------------------
  |                                    |
X:"ZOMG PC Police !!!1!"   X: "Plz explain this alleged racism"
  |                                    |
(conversation over)         Y,Z: "Sure, we feel..."
                                       |
                                    (conversation continues)
I can agree with much of what you're saying here. I'm not sure if you mean for your flow chart to be read this way, but can you not see how avoiding the personal attack "you're a racist," and instead going with "voter ID is racist," or even better, "voter ID contributes to systematic racism" is a much better way to keep a constructive conversation going with an unconvinced party?
09-23-2014 , 04:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 13ball
Alex, here's something from Wiki:



So you are pretty obviously wrong.
Yeah, that wasn't about secession though, it was about ratifying Amendments. New York wanted to make it so they could take back ratification after they'd done it.

Nice try, but no banana.
09-23-2014 , 04:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl
Really? I've explained to you the political climate wasn't set up in your imagined libertarian context. Lincoln fought to preserve the union and for an ideology that would free the slaves by the war's end. Too bad Lincoln didn't live to see it done. Your imagined libertarian reasons for the justification for Southern sucession were invented after the Civil War by racists. That you're so steeped into the Lost Cause to see it isn't anyone's fault but your own. For the record I don't think your racist, just falling for racist shtick.
You explaining things isn't evidence! Give me evidence! If what you say is true, it should be really, really easy to give me some actual evidence. Please do so.

      
m