Does Whining About Political Correctness in a Racism Debate Correlate to Being a Racist? - Page 24 - Politics version 7.0 -- Two Plus Two Poker Forums

Two Plus Two Forums Archived Forums Archived Other Topics Politics version 7.0

Does Whining About Political Correctness in a Racism Debate Correlate to Being a Racist?

...

Page 24 of 130

First

4 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 34 44 74 124

Last

Page 24 of 130

First

4 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 34 44 74 124

Last

09-23-2014 , 09:34 PM

#576

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexM

And what about all the Germans who benefited off of what happened to the Jews? Should we have simply executed the whole country?

LOL, it's hard to remember at times that this is a grown ass man losing his damn mind

09-23-2014 , 09:38 PM

#577

AlexM

ignored

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 20,655

Quote:

Originally Posted by goofyballer

LOL, it's hard to remember at times that this is a grown ass man losing his damn mind

My mind is fine. How's yours?

09-23-2014 , 09:38 PM

#578

David Sklansky

Administrator

Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 17,361

Quote:

Originally Posted by swissmiss

Disclaimer?
But the opposite is true too. It doesn't matter whether the South enslaved black people, they had a "right" to secede.

The later is just not accepted "truth" in the dominant discourse today. And maybe this is important to explain history and why a war was "necessary", but it shouldn't be to explain the future and I know that I am shifting the goalpost with this assertion. But if you read abolitionists like Henry Wright and Nathaniel Rogers, they exactly claimed that governments that coerce claim ownership in people and are exactly therefore slave masters. They sure as hell never read Rothbard or Mises or whomever.

Governments that coerce are not the same as slave masters. Not even close. And my point about secession is that it is irrelevant. Even Bruce admitted that it was not unethical for a slave to kill his master to become free. But that implies that it would be not unethical for anyone else to kill that slave owner as well, as long as their sole reason to do it was to free that slave. If tomorrow Belgium decided it should be legal to own black slaves it would be ethical to kill any Belgian who owned one. Whether or not the South seceded or had the right to do it doesn't matter because any educated pro slavery person in the South deserved to die.

09-23-2014 , 10:01 PM

#579

spanktehbadwookie

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 19,374

Quote:

Originally Posted by swissmiss

What kind? Why not every kind?

The kind who put up billboards with racist implications, protest in front of the social justice center, and slip inside politics unseen and with greased wheels.
Not your average political liar, but one who lies to dominate people and divide them by race. That is the type which is higher priority than other garden-variety types due to the potential and ongoing consequences of their success.

Quote:

I do not think that a stable society is something to be longed for. Why should it? (Let's abstract from racist thought here).

Stable appears to be relative in our universe. In human affairs more peace is more stability from my perspective. I do mean peace in the tranquil sense- an absence of fear and violence.

Quote:

Why is there an opponent in the first place? (I only pose this question in this way for Spank).

From a humanistic viewpoint, the racist cast the first stone and created the struggle. Framing the racist viewpoint and the people who support it as oppositional is simply the nature of the matter.

It also helps to know that a tendency to manipulate people goes hand in hand with racist thinking. Treating people as objects and game pieces without regard for humanity.

Taking a game mentality to another level to help defeat them is an imaginative exercise that puts that petty little way to good use.

I also prefer opponent rather than enemy for the broader humanistic implications. I personally would rather let the racists have enemies and not me.

09-23-2014 , 10:35 PM

#580

spanktehbadwookie

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 19,374

A political racist is distinct from a person who is just prejudiced. The political racist uses praxeological thinking to dimly rationalize that prejudices are all really kinda similar and then proceeds to use the knowledge fallaciously. Black becomes poor, gay, liberal. If it is a prejudice that can be exploited for power and political discord- stupid thinking and racist thinking might be involved. The other thing is the extremist religious streak found in political racism. So much racist exploitation of religion has occurred, miracles are bound to happen hypothetically.

09-23-2014 , 10:50 PM

#581

BrianTheMick2

Long way to go and a short time to get there.

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 19,444

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezlaw

Except you have done something. That is unless you don't think PC works.

That doesn't mean what was done was correct or the best approach, but forcing ourselves to take extra care not to offend certain groups is a good idea. Maybe even more important its reminded us what a good idea it is.

I was speaking in general at the strategy. Of course I think that being PC is better. The problem is that it has become a rallying cry for bigots of all types that allows them to dismissively reject any attempts at actually arguing points.

The problem I have is that Stewart Lee is fine having a go at a cultural group like the Christians, but not at Gypsies. Worse still, unless I concentrate really hard on the irony of him saying that people don't have a right to be not offended, I laugh my ass off "because those silly Christians and their silly Christian antics are laughable." Makes me feel a little link a hamster...

I don't like the feeling. It is too tribalistic, and being anti-racism because it is stupid tribalism... <head explode>

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jbrochu

When everybody was talking about the quotes that were just up thread there was no argument going on. We all agreed. Which should tell you something. (Though I have a funny feeling it will tell you something different than it tells me.)

Your funny feeling about me is completely incorrect. When I used to teach, one of the sayings that was common was "if you hear hoofbeats, think of horses, not zebras."

I found it strange that I had to say it so often. Chezlaw and FoldnDark would have given me fits as students.

Several SMP friends more or less sent me "I heard clippity-clop" PMs.

Quote:

I thought you were still talking about Bruce. In the last 100 posts or so he's been the subject of several posts regardless of if he was named.

I understand. Some people are weird and like rehashing things a few gazillion times. Because, you know, that helps not at all.

I will try too be clear and mention people by name if I am not making a general point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shame Trolly !!!1!

No it's not an argument. But it isn't 'gossip' either, it's an unsupported assertion.

Not unsupported. Everyone with ears heard hoofbeats (I am talking specifically about the Bruce thing here). If it is about someone, then it is gossip unless the person has an actual importance worthy of being mentioned in historical documents.

Quote:

At that point Person-X has several options... including ignoring it, dismissing it without explanation (canonically "LOL" full stop), engaging in the conversation by asking the person making the assertion to 'show their work', or whining like a stuck pig about 'name calling' and derailing the conversation.

BruceZ spectacularly choose the whining like a stuck pig option.

Back to the horse/zebra thing. The person can actually present stripes. It isn't so hard to do so. People like zebras; zebras are cool.

Bruce was either a horse hoping that he can get away with plausibly being a zebra by refusing to turn on the lights, or he a zebra inexplicably fearful of lights.

Or a really giant hedgehog wearing horseshoes.

09-23-2014 , 11:03 PM

#582

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexM

No, I'm not saying anything of the sort. I was discussing an idea of what might or might not be fair in a theoretical conversation half a decade ago. You're a ****ing idiot if you actually seriously believe I had a strong opinion either way.

Ha! Alex, I thought you might have learned your lesson from BruceZ, but no, you don't simultaneously get to argue that you absolutely never apologized for slavery and that I'm a liar for suggesting as much and also that your slavery apologies are just an exercise in contrarian debate.

09-23-2014 , 11:12 PM

#583

BrianTheMick2

Long way to go and a short time to get there.

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 19,444

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

Alex, justice for the slave owner would be taking his slaves, and taking every thing he earned off the backs of his slaves to give to those slaves, and applying additional punitive damages by throwing them in prison for at least as long as they owned slaves. Taking the couple's slaves and leaving them with no slaves leaves them with massive profits gained over years of ease at the expense of the slaves. Merely taking the slaves away is still a massive economic victory for people perpetuating evil, and you say that's not good enough compensation for the evildoers?

You are conflating legal justice and moral justice and equivocating current good/evil morality with past notions of good/evil.

I happen to feel the same moral outrage as you do, but it leads me to the conclusion that the first human should have first invented the coat hanger and aborted it all from the start.

I disagree with the conclusion. I disagree that it is a conclusion. I hope that future generations will look back at our current generation and find it abhorrent. That, my friend, is what the progress we have made looks like to me. We suck, but are improving.

09-23-2014 , 11:25 PM

#584

FoldnDark

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,930

Brian brian, you're so right but too clever. If you could just let go of that silly intentionality fallacy bs, instead of hoof beats you'd hear cat paws.

09-23-2014 , 11:49 PM

#585

BrianTheMick2

Long way to go and a short time to get there.

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 19,444

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoldnDark

Brian brian, you're so right but too clever. If you could just let go of that silly intentionality fallacy bs, instead of hoof beats you'd hear cat paws.

That was a private conversation. Now that you have brought it up here maybe some progress can be made.

09-24-2014 , 05:50 AM

#586

tomdemaine

Just tries harder

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 20,056

Brian,

Have you seen Stuart lee's latest stand up carpet remnant world? If not you should. Firstly because it's awesome and second because there's a bit addressing "why don't you tell jokes about X?" Though the X in this case is Muslims I think the sentiment applies easily to gypsies too.

09-24-2014 , 07:16 AM

#587

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 48,945

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2

The problem is that it has become a rallying cry for bigots of all types that allows them to dismissively reject any attempts at actually arguing points.

That can be true, not sure but it might be. On similar lines I have a much bigger problem with it than the argument point.

I support PC because I believe it's right even if sometimes misused but it's it's in part an accident that I believe this (partial) social norm is right

I'm not saying this about anyone here, as others have pointed out even the worst of us are fairly geeky/educated (and PC is still unpopular anyway) but many people behave similarly against anything that's considered unacceptable to society and the norm is frequently bad. Its an accident that people who are unthinkingly PC do a good thing as although they do the right thing (imo) they are doing it for a poor reason.

Also bad, and now I don't exclude people here, are people who enjoy hurting others in the PC cause.

Put them together and we have the worst thing of all - those who enjoy the savaging of others whilst unthinkingly being PC. Encouraging this group is a very bad mistake even if they are on our side this time, and is one reason we shouldn't revel in being PC even if we should be PC.

Quote:

The problem I have is that Stewart Lee is fine having a go at a cultural group like the Christians

Whether we should or not is a very different thing to PC although it's covered by the rest of my point.

Its hugely different because christians aren't a vulnerable group in our society. His also not having a go at people who are brought up christian but those who adopt it as a lifestyle, again this is very different to race, sex, ethnicity etc. Thirdly and probably most importantly, his really having a go at the political views of certain prominent groups of christians and that is definitely fair game.

Last edited by chezlaw; 09-24-2014 at 07:35 AM.

09-24-2014 , 07:38 AM

#588

AlexM

ignored

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 20,655

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

Yeah, more things I never said. You are the worst liar. Total human scum.

09-24-2014 , 07:56 AM

#589

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 48,945

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Sklansky

it not being unethical for a slave to kill his master doesn't imply its unethical for anyone else to kill that master even if their sole reason is to free the slave.

One of the reasons its not unethical for a slave is they don't have recourse to the law in the same way as free people. Another is that they don't have access to society to bring about change to the law. Another is they have no way to protest without extreme sanction. Another is the pushed beyond endurance type reason for doing it. There's also a more contractual type of ethical argument in that a master who takes on a slave is implicitly (to say the least) accepting the risk of the slave trying to kill him - a bit like if you keep a tiger in a cage you can't really complain if it savages you (no I'm not saying slaves are like tigers).

09-24-2014 , 08:19 AM

#590

Jbrochu

banned

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 16,052

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezlaw

This response is so overwhelmingly condescending and offensive to me, and so polarized from my own viewpoint, that I know upfront taking the time to argue the points is futile.

When I choose to lolz at racist viewpoint rather than engage, I'm making a similar choice.

09-24-2014 , 08:38 AM

#591

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 48,945

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jbrochu

There was no suggestion you should engage with racist viewpoints so I guess I didn't explain it very well.

The only point that might be offensive is me not excluding everybody here from those who take pleasure in hurting someone.

09-24-2014 , 08:47 AM

#592

Jbrochu

banned

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 16,052

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezlaw

Actually, that part about not excluding people here was not offensive to me. It would take me quite a while to try and explain, if I have time later I will try.

09-24-2014 , 08:47 AM

#593

airwave16

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 6,218

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

Just to clear it up, I'm talking about the post where you call slavery an evil institution, an institution so evil that one should face no consequences, economic or otherwise, for perpetuating it and expanding it for one's own economic benefit. That's apologizing for slavery. Hope this helps.

this is a bad post.

seriously, you and fly have worse reading comprehension than LK.

09-24-2014 , 08:57 AM

#594

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 48,945

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jbrochu

Actually, that part about not excluding people here was not offensive to me. It would take me quite a while to try and explain, if I have time later I will try.

I'd appreciate it. I could be wrong but I don't think there's actually anything else in there to offend anyone and I don't think its particularly polarising even if we disagree.

There was certainly no intent to be condescending. The reverse if anything.

09-24-2014 , 09:14 AM

#595

airwave16

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 6,218

also, fly's hypocrisy is so delicious i think it might be better than cheesecake.

and i ****ing love cheesecake.

09-24-2014 , 10:21 AM

#596

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,320

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezlaw

The law is ultimately violence. If the slave master says f*ck you I'm keeping my slaves then yes violence and death are fine. Nat Turner was a true American hero. There should be a statue of him in every Southern square

Last edited by Huehuecoyotl; 09-24-2014 at 10:41 AM.

09-24-2014 , 10:25 AM

#597

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by airwave16

this is a bad post.

seriously, you and fly have worse reading comprehension than LK.

lol

09-24-2014 , 10:29 AM

#598

rjoefish

Got Out the Vote

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 31,086

Quote:

Originally Posted by airwave16

also, fly's hypocrisy is so delicious i think it might be better than cheesecake.

and i ****ing love cheesecake.

I think Alex's is better.

09-24-2014 , 10:35 AM

#599

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,320

Anyone want to try this shoe on and see if it fits?

Quote:

Summary of neo-Confederate beliefs

Economics — neo-Confederates usually advocate a free market economy which engages in significantly less taxation than currently found in the United States, and which does not revolve around fiat currencies such as the United States Dollar.[2]

History — many neo-Confederates are openly critical of the presidency of Abraham Lincoln to varied degrees, and of the history of Reconstruction. Various authors have written critiques of Lincoln and the Union. Slavery is almost never defended, but it is usually denied as a primary cause of the American Civil War. Critics often accuse Neo-Confederates of "revisionism" and of acting as "apologists".[3]

The Civil Rights Movement — Historian Nancy MacLean states that Neo-Confederates used the history of the Confederacy to justify their opposition to the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s and 1960s.[4] Historian David Blight writes that current neo-Confederates are "driven largely by the desire of current white supremacists to re-legitimize the Confederacy, while they tacitly reject the victories of the modern civil rights movement".[5]

Neo-confederates and libertarianism

Historian Daniel Feller asserts that libertarian authors Thomas DiLorenzo, Charles Adams, and Jeffrey Rogers Hummel have produced a "marriage of neo-Confederates and libertarianism." Despite an apparent disconnect ("How can a lover of liberty defend slavery?"), Feller writes:

What unites the two, aside from their hostility to the liberal academic establishment, is their mutual loathing of big government. Adams, DiLorenzo, and Hummel view the Civil War through the prism of market economics. In their view its main consequence, and even its purpose, was to create a leviathan state that used its powers to suppress the most basic personal freedom, the right to choose. The Civil War thus marks a historic retreat for liberty, not an advance. Adams and DiLorenzo dismiss the slavery issue as a mere pretext for aggrandizing central power. All three authors see federal tyranny as the war's greatest legacy. And they all hate Abraham Lincoln.[14]

Hummel in turn, in a review of libertarian Thomas E. Woods, Jr's "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History", refers to the works by DiLorenzo and Adams as "amateurish neo-Confederate books". Of Woods, Hummel states that the two main neo-Confederate aspects of Woods' work are his emphasis on a legal right of secession while ignoring the moral right to secession and his failure to acknowledge the importance of slavery in the Civil War. Hummel writes:

Woods writes 'that the slavery debate masked the real issue: the struggle over power and domination' (p. 48). Talk about a distinction without a difference. It is akin to stating that the demands of sugar lobbyists for protective quotas mask their real worry: political influence. Yes, slaveholders constituted a special interest that sought political power. Why? To protect slavery.[15]

Hummel also criticizes Woods' "neo-Confederate sympathies" in his chapter on Reconstruction. Most egregious was his "apologia for the Black Codes adopted by the southern states immediately after the Civil War." Part of the problem was Woods' reliance on an earlier neo-Confederate work, Robert Selph Henry's 1938 book "The Story of Reconstruction."[15]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Confederate

09-24-2014 , 10:46 AM

#600

swissmiss

adept

Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,069

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Sklansky

And my point about secession is that it is irrelevant. Even Bruce admitted that it was not unethical for a slave to kill his master to become free. But that implies that it would be not unethical for anyone else to kill that slave owner as well, as long as their sole reason to do it was to free that slave. If tomorrow Belgium decided it should be legal to own black slaves it would be ethical to kill any Belgian who owned one. Whether or not the South seceded or had the right to do it doesn't matter because any educated pro slavery person in the South deserved to die.

It doesn't imply that, see chezlaw's points, if you are into laws. And to add a quote from Nathaniel Rogers:

Quote:

Anti-slavery is a more serious matter than a great many took it to be, who niminally enlisted in it, at the outset. It does not consist in thinking slaveholding is a sin, or as the self-worshipping clergy say, with dismal work, and sacerdotal pucker, a wrong. Nor in thinking it would be safe, or profitable, or expedient, to have it stopped at once. Nor in shuddering at thought of a cart whip and paddle. (...) Anti-Slavery demands the abolition of slavery on the grounds that slaves are human, and therefore must not be enslaved; - that masters are human (or would be if they did not banish all their humanity,) so cannot be masters.

I just happen to think, that they did not banish all their humanity by having slaves.
You think only the "educated" did so, which is conceding a point to Bruce's moral relativism. And this makes you as much pro-slavery as it does him.

But I would actually argue the anti-slavery antiwar (non-resistance) point not only for the reason that just killing somebody is not the same as going to war.

Page 24 of 130

First

4 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 34 44 74 124

Last

...

Page 24 of 130

First

4 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 34 44 74 124

Last