Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » "Why do people believe myths about the Confederacy?" (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: "Why do people believe myths about the Confederacy?"
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by yossarian22c:
Which Republican leaders do you think continue to fight for the oppressed and downtrodden?

Just a quibble, but appearing to fight for the oppressed and downtrodden isn't the same as fighting for the oppressed and downtrodden.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Athelstan
Member
Member # 2566

 - posted      Profile for Athelstan   Email Athelstan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
The text of the amendment says "house".

Interesting. I wrongly assumed all Americans thought all the Amendments were sacrosanct and so thought the remark was aimed at the Quartering Acts. Further reading is clearly required by me into opposition to the Third Amendment.
Posts: 715 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Athelstan:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
The text of the amendment says "house".

Interesting. I wrongly assumed all Americans thought all the Amendments were sacrosanct and so thought the remark was aimed at the Quartering Acts. Further reading is clearly required by me into opposition to the Third Amendment.
That's okay. You are still further ahead on the Bill of Rights than I am on tentacle porn.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Which modern Republican leaders do you claim seek to restore slavery?
De jure? None. De Facto? Probably at least half the "candidates", albeit probably not intentionally.

Granted if there was a full spectrum opposing Clinton, half the Democrats would too.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Please expound on specifics of de facto slavery you see being restored, NH and dont go easy on the factos.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would define, for the purposes of this discussion, the necessary element of slavery to be unfree labor. Historically, some forms of slavery include earning money or rely on implicit forms of coercion. I would also point out that I'm not reading 'restore' as re-creating the peculiar institution of American slavery but slavery more generically.

So how are certain politicians and factions seeking to create a system of unfree labor? Well, there's the hostility to unions. Certain aspects of the employment of illegal immigrants and related policies seem conducive to reducing the freedom of said immigrants. Citizens United (which some candidates support) could be seen as degrading the highest freedoms depending on how deterministic you think spending money on elections are.

Broadly speaking, I'm thinking of policies and positions that reduce the ability of workers to find other employment or to change the conditions of their current employment. Currently, it's just depressing wages and screwing up the economy, but the trends are such that many people may soon have no choice in their employment.

So politicians who promote the interests of business while attacking the interests of workers are seeking, unintentionally or otherwise, to create a system of de facto slavery. Ultimately, if the interests of business are given primacy over the interests of people, slavery is inevitable.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Some good points there but restricting immigrants from entering the country (where they actually work under conditions that approach or equal slavery) suggests you may not be cognizant of the facts. if someone else here had made that comparison i would argue doublespeak. But that's not your style.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree that anti unionism and systematic inequality can create conditions of de facto slavery.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I meant more that the reactions to the "spectre" of illegal immigration that I think contributes to lack of freedom on a certain class of workers.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Some good points there but restricting immigrants from entering the country (where they actually work under conditions that approach or equal slavery) suggests you may not be cognizant of the facts. if someone else here had made that comparison i would argue doublespeak. But that's not your style.

He didn't advocate restricting them. Another, more practical, solution to the issue would be to grant them legal residency so that they cannot be exploited here. The restrictive immigration policies and attempts to restrict immigration are what create the situation where people are here illegally in the first place. Under a rational system that would grant them legal entry without a hassle, they wouldn't be here illegally.

He also didn't cover theaggressive use of debt to impoverish and effectively enslave people. Keeping wages low enough that people are required to seek loans to make ends meet, lending them money that could otherwise have been paid to them as wages, then charging them destructive interest and fees on on those loans is a direct tactic for keeping people who are poor, poor and dependent on their creditors and slowly eroding the power of people who are currently above the line by being able to hold them over a barrel when, inevitably, something unfortunate happens that gives their creditors power over them.

[ July 10, 2015, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I seem to recall that a bunch of ancient/classical (greek , pre-imperial roman?) revolutions or drastic redistribution of property were done in response to epidemics of debt slavery.

I wouldn't be surprised if it had something to do with the development of serfdom in Europe, considering all the other distortions caused by the late Empire's scramble for revenue. And the corresponding scramble to avoid turning into a revenue source.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Honestly, how many times must it be explained to you that, in the hundred years after the Civil War, the Republican Party switched sides on the issue of civil rights?

I'd like to see it explained once, convincingly, and not just as a liberal truism.

Though much in this thread is essentially libel, it seems premised on the idea that a party holding out for equal rights (and winning them successfully by legislation) has "switched sides" by not continuing past that point to advocate for enhanced rights. At it's root, this is a criticism that is based on the belief system of a party that does not believe in equality for all (the Democrats) because it believes it can craft a better result by manipulation and discrimination in line with enlightened views. Opposing discrimination, even for "enlightened" reasons, is not the same thing as racism or being in favor of anything other than equality.

The absolute fact is that NEITHER party pursues a racist agenda, and the Democratic party's association with racism is far greater as a matter of history than the Republican party's. And you still see that today with the Democrats insistence on playing racial politics and fracturing people by irrelevant categories like race. It's the "enlightened" plantation owner mentality, who's doing it for the good of the little people who can't stand on their own two feet (in the opinion of the plantation owner) without his benevolence.

So quit deluding yourselves, Republican's and Democrat's have an equal amount of true racists, and you'd have a hard time demonstrating that light racism isn't more prevalent in the Democratic party than the Republican party.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
I seem to recall that a bunch of ancient/classical (greek , pre-imperial roman?) revolutions or drastic redistribution of property were done in response to epidemics of debt slavery.

I wouldn't be surprised if it had something to do with the development of serfdom in Europe, considering all the other distortions caused by the late Empire's scramble for revenue. And the corresponding scramble to avoid turning into a revenue source.

This is a very good speculation, since we are verging now towards a type of corporate feudalism where the serfdom has just enough mobility that there can be hope for "the American dream." It's a more intelligent kind of serfdom, where people have enough things that they are afraid to lose them by making trouble, but where the amount of actual free choice and influence is very low.

The Dune series, for instance, speculates that corporate feudalism is the way of the future and that it will be that way for a very long time.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Though much in this thread is essentially libel, it seems premised on the idea that a party holding out for equal rights (and winning them successfully by legislation) has "switched sides" by not continuing past that point to advocate for enhanced rights
Why would anyone start with a politicized lie about "enhanced rights"? You're begging the question when you try to lead with that nonsense as if it were evidence rather than a invented claim that tries to whitewash the racist sentiment that it actually represents.

quote:
Opposing discrimination, even for "enlightened" reasons, is not the same thing as racism or being in favor of anything other than equality.
Sure, but since that's not happening anywhere, it's irrelevant. Rather we have Democrats supporting programs to further eliminate existing, pernicious discrimination, while the GOP defends it by denying that it exists and trying to cast efforts to end it as discriminatory though half truths, at best, if not baldfaced lies like the completely fabricated notion of "enhanced rights"

quote:
And you still see that today with the Democrats insistence on playing racial politics and fracturing people by irrelevant categories like race
Which is to say- the Democrats are more honest about fractures that already exist, and would continue to exist even if they weren't pointing them out. you're trying to blame the people who are trying to tell you that the ship is sinking for telling you that there's a leak; insisting that the act of telling you that there's a leak is what's making water get in, and if they'd stop talking about it, the water would stay out all on its own.

The fractures exist, no matter how much you try to deny them over and over (even as the GOP turns around and tries to exploit them like you see in the naked bigotry that we're seeing come out of some of the current Republican presidential hopefuls.)

In as much as you're saying that both parties acknowledge race, you're right. But acknowledging race isn't racism. Acting oppressively toward people based on race is.

ANd that's where the core difference is- the Democrats, by and large, acknowledge existing inequities and try to work to resolve them- to reduce the overall level or discrimination, while the Republicans tend to nominally deny that inequities exist, while at the same time using them to demonize the people suffering from them- all while capitalizing on the divisions by using them to terrorize the majority group into both perpetuating existing oppression and thinking that reducing systemic oppression is equivalent to oppressing those that are currently advantaged. Similar to how, above, you were characterizing programs that prevent existing, baked in discrimination and force people to make choices on a non-discriminatory basis as being discrimination.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am not at a computer with a keyboard. Google "Southern Strategy".
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Some good points there but restricting immigrants from entering the country (where they actually work under conditions that approach or equal slavery) suggests you may not be cognizant of the facts. if someone else here had made that comparison i would argue doublespeak. But that's not your style.

He didn't advocate restricting them. Another, more practical, solution to the issue would be to grant them legal residency so that they cannot be exploited here. The restrictive immigration policies and attempts to restrict immigration are what create the situation where people are here illegally in the first place. Under a rational system that would grant them legal entry without a hassle, they wouldn't be here illegally.

That's generally true.

But when a country such as Mexico intentionally and systematically oppresses certain populations in order to push them to immigrate to the USA, and derives more nationally from expatriated labor than from its rich oil, gold or any other resource or industry... in such a case even your suggestion could reward, encourage and even foster oppression more like slavery on a bigger scale than anything that's happened in the US since the 1970s.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
it seems premised on the idea that a party holding out for equal rights (and winning them successfully by legislation) has "switched sides" by not continuing past that point to advocate for enhanced rights
Except that's not what happened, Seriati. The Republican Party did not say to itself, "Okay, we did what we set out to do by ending slavery, so we're done with this whole civil rights thing."
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, no. The democrats said, how can we best restore de facto slavery in the South and suppressed black voting. Republicans fought them initially but did a full scale retreat from reconstruction in exchange for a deal where the Democrats agreed to stop bitching for a Florida recount in a late 19th century presidential election. then both parties joined for a few decades in suppressing immigration and winning "civil rights" for corporations.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Even by 1964, Democrats comprised mont of the opposition to the civil rights Act. The core of the filibuster against the 1964 CRA included 18 Democrats. (Most notably senator Byrd) and 1 republican. Otoh by this time the main leadership of the movement were Democrats. Well, unless you count mlk, a Republican...
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, it was right around 1964 when the Democrats under LBJ initiated major civil rights legislation that the racists of the Democratic Party left to find a more congenial political party, and the Republican Party was transformed under Nixon to exploit that bigotry in exchange for power.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Pete, it was right around 1964 when the Democrats under LBJ initiated major civil rights legislation that the racists of the Democratic Party left to find a more congenial political party, and the Republican Party was transformed under Nixon to exploit that bigotry in exchange for power.

Which is an absolutely false statement of history, used as propaganda, with just enough nuggets of reality to convince people it all holds together.

Reality is the Democratic party was openly racist prior to 1964 (and the vast majority of those open racists in the south stayed democrats and did not reregister Republican). And even in 1964, more Republicans than Democrats were pro civil rights. The racists left because they felt betrayed, not because they were looking for a more "congenial" party, neither party was congenial to them.

What did happen is that the Republican's exploited the race issue to make those disenfranchised Democrats give them another look, but really sold the people of the South - racist and not racist - on the commonality they had with the more conservative Republicans that they overlooked. It's the exact same strategy the Republicans tried decades later with black voters when they tried to appeal to religious communities with conservative values.

It's interesting to me that so many of you think that it's obvious that felons should automatically get their voting rights back, but apparently that southern conservatives should have been considered pariahs if there was even a hint of racism around them (notwithstanding that the Democrats openly pandered to their racism for most of history).

In any event, there was no transformation of the party, that wasn't a result of the times, or did you miss the entire social movement of the 1960's and 70's, free love, anarchism, anti-military that forced the older generations into more conservative paths.
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Davidson:
quote:
it seems premised on the idea that a party holding out for equal rights (and winning them successfully by legislation) has "switched sides" by not continuing past that point to advocate for enhanced rights
Except that's not what happened, Seriati. The Republican Party did not say to itself, "Okay, we did what we set out to do by ending slavery, so we're done with this whole civil rights thing."
Which is not an unfair criticism if you just look at the micro-scale time in question. Though, I'd have to seriously ask why we should focus on what's essentially less than a 10 year period of time where there was even a plausible argument that there was an openly racist strategy (even then it's questionable how open it was when the majority of the party was anti-racist). By 1980 (16 years later, but really even sooner), open racism was a death sentence for a politician, and it's now 35 years past that point.

If you look at the whole picture, it looks like what I said, with a brief interlude of Real Politik based on having lost elections for years. Which the Dems should recognize, since they're going through a "say anything to win" phase of their own right now.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Though much in this thread is essentially libel, it seems premised on the idea that a party holding out for equal rights (and winning them successfully by legislation) has "switched sides" by not continuing past that point to advocate for enhanced rights
Why would anyone start with a politicized lie about "enhanced rights"?
I don't know, if you find someone who has let me know.

This thread is a libel. It's an attempt to overgeneralize from a specific time window and a limited strategy to pretend that every part of a party is at it's root all about the tainted argument. You're far far past any legitimate claims to dog whistles. There's no secret message about race in the modern platforms, in fact any message about race is pretty much abhorrent to both parties.
quote:
You're begging the question when you try to lead with that nonsense as if it were evidence rather than a invented claim that tries to whitewash the racist sentiment that it actually represents.
What do you know about evidence? You just make up claims and assert them as fact. The statistics make it clear that racism is a prevalent in the democratic party as the Republican (and to even get that you have to exclude black racism against whites, else the Dems come out more racist). So who's the whitewasher?
quote:
quote:
Opposing discrimination, even for "enlightened" reasons, is not the same thing as racism or being in favor of anything other than equality.
Sure, but since that's not happening anywhere, it's irrelevant.
Happens all the time, virtually every position you have requires that we categorize people by group and ignore their individual characteristics. You specifically advocate for "enlightened" decision making based on race.
quote:
Rather we have Democrats supporting programs to further eliminate existing, pernicious discrimination, while the GOP defends it by denying that it exists and trying to cast efforts to end it as discriminatory though half truths, at best, if not baldfaced lies like the completely fabricated notion of "enhanced rights"
And if you can't find actual racism, or racist intent, you just change the definition to make what every you do find into "hidden and pernicious" racism. If you have a logical rather than definitional argument to make bring out.
quote:
quote:
And you still see that today with the Democrats insistence on playing racial politics and fracturing people by irrelevant categories like race
Which is to say- the Democrats are more honest about fractures that already exist, and would continue to exist even if they weren't pointing them out.
Democrats aren't honest about this. Fractures exist and Democrats (much like Republican's with the Southern Strategy) seek to exploit and widen them for their own electoral gains. Race healing is NOT in the interest of the Democratic party, cause it keeps a solid base of voters home at election time.
quote:
you're trying to blame the people who are trying to tell you that the ship is sinking for telling you that there's a leak; insisting that the act of telling you that there's a leak is what's making water get in, and if they'd stop talking about it, the water would stay out all on its own.
I don't where you get this stuff. I'm standing in the middle of sea that evaporated years ago watching you claim we need to bail out the "ship" or we're gonna die.
quote:
The fractures exist, no matter how much you try to deny them over and over (even as the GOP turns around and tries to exploit them like you see in the naked bigotry that we're seeing come out of some of the current Republican presidential hopefuls.)
Exploitation of racial fractures is the modus operendi of the Democratic party. The rest of your post is pretty much just liberal fantasy, it's the things you tell yourselves so you don't have to engage on issues, so you can just feel outraged and passionate and superior. But it's not reality, and it never has been.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This thread is a libel.
Man, let me know when it's possible to take you seriously again, Seriati. You've somehow managed to disconnect from reality and become a partisan mouthpiece, and it's tragic.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't know, if you find someone who has let me know.
You just did when you asserted the the tread was based on the premise of holding out for "enhanced rights", but the only place where that concept exists in this context are GOP propaganda that tries to deny inequity and trick people into thinking that further work toward equal treatment and correcting ongoing inequity is somehow working for enhanced rights.

No one on the side of continuing to address racial inequity believes in "enhanced rights" to be able to use that as a premise. It is entirely an accusation made up by those opposed to further action to address inequity.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
There's no secret message about race in the modern platforms, in fact any message about race is pretty much abhorrent to both parties.
Who said anything about secret- from the inception of southern strategy through "welfare queens" and Trump's recent "Murderers and rapists" the message has been very overt. Whereas Democrats at least pay lip service to correcting problems, even if many of them don't follow through well once they're in position to do something. They, in their rhetoric, at least acknowledge that there are problems to be fixed instead of overtly playing into them, with a few that are even actually serious about fixing problems.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The statistics make it clear that racism is a prevalent in the democratic party as the Republican (and to even get that you have to exclude black racism against whites, else the Dems come out more racist).
Where do you suggest that blacks have enough social and institutional power that any prejudices they have about whites actually become oppressive so as to be able to be called racism? Prejudice is certainly universal, but that's personal, not policy, and those who recognize it in themselves can put it aside for the sake of fixing things, and otherwise mitigate racist effects that might come of it.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
I don't know, if you find someone who has let me know.
You just did when you asserted the the tread was based on the premise of holding out for "enhanced rights", but the only place where that concept exists in this context are GOP propaganda that tries to deny inequity and trick people into thinking that further work toward equal treatment and correcting ongoing inequity is somehow working for enhanced rights.
No one is trying to trick anyone. When there is inequity we all should be concerned. But you don't look for inequity, you look for difference and pretend its the same thing.
quote:
No one on the side of continuing to address racial inequity believes in "enhanced rights" to be able to use that as a premise. It is entirely an accusation made up by those opposed to further action to address inequity.
I agree you don't "believe" in it, it's just the direct result of the policies you advocate. You've systematically rejected neutral criteria applied without racial malice or intent where they produce a result that's inconsistent with what you want to be true.
quote:
Who said anything about secret- from the inception of southern strategy through "welfare queens" and Trump's recent "Murderers and rapists" the message has been very overt.
Lol. It's not like it's hard to pull quotes from the radical left calling for special privileges. What's your point again? Oh yeah to pretend that all political disagreement is nothing more than racism in disguise. Which is just a libel.
quote:
Whereas Democrats at least pay lip service to correcting problems, even if many of them don't follow through well once they're in position to do something.
You've missed the point. They pay lip service to correcting problems, period. They do it to exploit racial attitudes and divides, EXACTLY like you are asserting the Republicans did in the southern strategy. Today's Democrats are STILL RUNNING the Southern strategy they've just changed the target.

And it's no coincidence that the solutions they come up with always involve taxing the "other" guy and spreading his wealth to the disadvantaged (and thereby systematically, exacerbating the racial divide and increasing the dependency of their own voters). It's a big ole electioneering scam, not a honest ideology for your politicians.
quote:
They, in their rhetoric, at least acknowledge that there are problems to be fixed instead of overtly playing into them, with a few that are even actually serious about fixing problems.
Both sides acknowledge a problem, it's a philosophical not racial divide on how to solve it. But it's clear to me that the left derives (intentionally) more electoral benefit from exploiting and maintaining the racial divide and disadvantage.

Tom, get over it, if there're going to be nasty threads accusing everyone on the Right of being secret racists just so people on the Left can feel better about themselves there's no reason I should have to take it. The FACT is racism is a tiny minority position of any people in this country, it's not a secret motivating code for why the socialist Utopia needs to be stopped.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The rest of your post is pretty much just liberal fantasy, it's the things you tell yourselves so you don't have to engage on issues, so you can just feel outraged and passionate and superior.
quote:
I'm standing in the middle of sea that evaporated years ago watching you claim we need to bail out the "ship" or we're gonna die.
Funny, though, that I actually engage the issue, while you resort to denying that there's a problem at all. I mean, how can you even begin to address any given issue if you insist that all the issues effectively "evaporated years ago". That is exactly the kind of denial of a problem that I was talking about.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
When there is inequity we all should be concerned. But you don't look for inequity, you look for difference and pretend its the same thing.
_Harmful_ difference. That's what inequity is.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I agree you don't "believe" in it, it's just the direct result of the policies you advocate.
Which is why it's begging the question to try to assert your conclusion as my motivation, rather than making any meaningful case that your conclusion is true. You keep asserting "enhanced rights" over and over despite it having no basis in reality.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What's your point again? Oh yeah to pretend that all political disagreement is nothing more than racism in disguise. Which is just a libel.
Nope. That, again, is your assertion, and instead of making a case for it, you're just assigning me a motive that's convenient to you.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
They pay lip service to correcting problems, period. They do it to exploit racial attitudes and divides, EXACTLY like you are asserting the Republicans did in the southern strategy.
Sure. But at least they acknowledge the reality of the problems, which is one step better than exploiting the divide while denying the problems. It means that some non-zero fraction of them are actually earnest about fixing them (and some work has to be done to address them, otherwise voters lose engagement and stop turning out) The kind of denialism that you've been arguing from is not only a slap in the face to people who have to live in a world where the problems exist as part of their day to day lives, but ensures that no one is actually going to try to address them, and in fact only gains political momentum from fighting against efforts to address them.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And it's no coincidence that the solutions they come up with always involve taxing the "other" guy and spreading his wealth to the disadvantaged (and thereby systematically, exacerbating the racial divide and increasing the dependency of their own voters). It's a big ole electioneering scam, not a honest ideology for your politicians.
Not one word of this is true, but it's exactly the kind of false argument used to create the spectre of oppression of the majority when none exists to scare them into supporting the continuation of existing oppression, and even into voting against policies that help most of the majority group enjoy sufficient political and economic freedom.

Good job on summarizing the plutocratic attack on the entire middle class that's getting people to vote themselves toward poverty. "The minorities are coming after your money, so hurry up and shoot yourself in the foot so us rich people can keep it safe for you and offer you all of these nice loans instead of paychecks"

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
...EXACTLY like you are asserting the Republicans did in the southern strategy
Is Pyrtolin simply asserting it, or do you concede that this is what they did? I want to establish a baseline reality, here.

quote:
if there're going to be nasty threads accusing everyone on the Right of being secret racists
Honestly, I don't think anyone believes Republicans are secretly racist.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Is Pyrtolin simply asserting it, or do you concede that this is what they did? I want to establish a baseline reality, here." ...

Thanks for that Tom.

" 'quote:
Do you really think this historical revision represenrpted by this thread is not about identity politics and creating a new, actual myth about to divide people?'

I don't. Perhaps not everyone is a bad person?" ...

What part of this "reality" evidences an epistemological basis for your personal capacity to identify "bad people"?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Thanks for that Tom.
You're welcome. Do you concede that this is what they did?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

By "they", you are referring to today's Democrats, or yesterday's Republicans?

Are both necessarily "bad people", or contextually ignorant people?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*sigh* Answer the friggin' question, noel. You know what the Southern Strategy is, yes? Do you believe that what Pyrtolin is asserting they did was in fact what they did?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How would we know what a "Southern Strategy" was if we are unwilling to identify what the current "Southern Strategy" is?

They are equally cynical political ploys, correct?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Noel, just answer the friggin' question.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1