Pencemegeddon

[NobleHunter]

It used to be politicians could say whatever and it was up to the voters to decide. That's not good enough anymore. For four years the Democrats screamed about a stolen election. Now if they say things that used to be okay before it's called incitement, sedition, and treason. And it isn't just politicians either. The My Pillow Guy is John Q. Public and he just had his products dropped by a bunch of stores. They aren't just going after politicians. They are going after everyone. It wouldn't surprise me if part of the military vetting process they are using now to screen troops includes something about whether or not they believe in massive voter fraud. If you do, your name goes on the list. The social apps also seem to be using massive voter fraud as their litmus test.

There was a time when you could believe in something without proof. You could proselytize your belief without any evidence. Those days are gone. I wonder how that's going to bode for God.

"Massive voter fraud" is turning into America's new shibboleth.

Given that people who believe in massive voter fraud tried to violently overthrow the government, it's probably good to know if military recruits share those beliefs.

[DonaldD]

For four years the Democrats screamed about a stolen election.

i've seen Republicans (or anti-Democrats) make this claim a lot lately.  But is there any truth in the claim?  Pointing out that Russia attacked the integrity of the electoral process is not the same as saying it was stolen.  Observing that Clinton won the popular vote is not the same either.

I fear that you are misrepresenting Democrats' position here, Cherry.

[msquared]

And the MyPillow guy  was dropped because he is trying to convince Trump to use Martial Law to overturn the election.  He is being sued for defamation for his claims about Dominion.  If the guy would just run his business, he might still be in those stores.

[cherrypoptart]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/hillary-clinton-trump-impeachment-illegitimate-president-2016-election-cbs-a9122986.html

"Hillary Clinton dismissed Donald Trump as an "illegitimate president" and suggested that "he knows" that he stole the 2016 presidential election in a CBS News interview to be aired on Sunday."

...

"In June, former president Jimmy Carter used similar language to diminish Mr. Trump's presidency."

...

Mr Carter said that in his view the current president lost the 2016 election and was put in office by the Russians. Asked if he considered Mr Trump to be illegitimate, he said: "Based on what I just said, which I can't retract."

...

Ms Clinton compared her election loss to "applying for a job and getting 66 million letters of recommendation and losing to a corrupt human tornado. And so I know that he knows that this wasn't on the level. I don't know that we'll ever know what happened."

------------------------------------------------------------

It goes all the way to the top. And the same type of conspiracy mindedness with her last bit about how she doesn't know that we'll ever know what happened just like the so-called insurrectionist treasonous traitor Trumpers are saying now about voter fraud that gets the ban hammer dropped on them.

[rightleft22]

It used to be politicians could say whatever and it was up to the voters to decide. That's not good enough anymore. For four years the Democrats screamed about a stolen election. Now if they say things that used to be okay before it's called incitement, sedition, and treason. And it isn't just politicians either. The My Pillow Guy is John Q. Public and he just had his products dropped by a bunch of stores. They aren't just going after politicians. They are going after everyone. It wouldn't surprise me if part of the military vetting process they are using now to screen troops includes something about whether or not they believe in massive voter fraud. If you do, your name goes on the list. The social apps also seem to be using massive voter fraud as their litmus test.

There was a time when you could believe in something without proof. You could proselytize your belief without any evidence. Those days are gone. I wonder how that's going to bode for God.

"Massive voter fraud" is turning into America's new shibboleth.

I'm not a fan of the 'cancel culture' but suspect its a natural progressing as we move away from the principle of “one person, one vote” toward the  modern, and utilitarian, notion of “one dollar, one vote.”. When Corporations are 'people' and that 'person' (MyPillow Guy) pushes for martial law based on some conspire theory that it was China behind the fraud that could not be found.... people are going to 'vote'

There was a time when you could believe in something without proof.

You might want to ask better for yourself and of others. Might also want to ask yourself at what point should 'believing something without proof' stop being believed?
If you have no proof and the evidence points to the belief not being true should not rational people stop believing it and stop promoting the falsehood?
 

[rightleft22]

It goes all the way to the top. And the same type of conspiracy mindedness with her last bit about how she doesn't know that we'll ever know what happened just like the so-called insurrectionist treasonous traitor Trumpers are saying now about voter fraud that gets the ban hammer dropped on them.

You can what about ism all you want.
The idea that Trump losing is proof of fraud is absurd reasoning. That he kept pushing it, and that his followers blindly followed him and that reasoning leading, well was not politics or patriotisms and turning into what it turned into.   

I can't prove your a stole something but that is proof your a thief... probably not the reasoning anyone would wont if they ever found themselves in the courts .

[msquared]

Cherry
Wow, critical thinking is missing in your analysis there.  Those two were asked what they thought.  And they gave their opinions. They have not tweeted for the past 2 months about a stolen election. They did not threaten state SOS and Governor's to change election results. They did not file over 60 law suits to over turn election results. They did not try and have the VP overturn the election results (against the Constitution by the way).

So that is all Dems screaming for 4 years about how Trump was not a legitimate President?  Pretty weak compared to what Trump and his followers were/are doing.

To this day Trump can still not admit he lost and say Biden is President.  He is a sore looser.

[Fenring]

They have said that Russia interfered, but most of them accepted Trump as President.

This is true, but only in context of an escalating definition of "accepted". Prior to 2000 the term didn't really need defining. In 2000 it became something like "we do not believe this was right but it has been crammed down our throats by the system." Michael Moore (a nut, to be fair) was very popular at the time, and was saying things like "Bush lost THE VOTE" as a way of saying that somehow the system was rigged to declare the loser the winner. Fast forward to 2016 and "accept" meant little more than "some governmental artifact has declared a guy the winner who cannot be allowed to be the winner." It might have also included "the sort of people who voted for him shouldn't count anyhow, so he's not really the winner." True, it has escalated even further in 2020 into "not even the governmental apparatus can be trusted to say that the loser is the winner." This has been a progression that follows sort of logically, albeit with a hiatus with Obama's wins. His legitimacy was challenged during his 1st election, but not really after he won.

All this to say that the meaning of "accepted" has been sliding downward since 2000, and only by a distorted definition could it be said that Trump was accepted by his opponents. Whether what happened just now is worse than that remains to be seen, because it's still relatively fresh. In the short term it's worse, and if it's long-lived than it will indeed be a worsening of a progression that has been a while coming.

[yossarian22c]

They have said that Russia interfered, but most of them accepted Trump as President.

In 2000 it became something like "we do not believe this was right but it has been crammed down our throats by the system."

2000 was decided by 500 votes and poor ballot design in Florida. It was the first presidential election in nearly a century where the winner of the popular vote did not also win the electoral vote. People made that distinction but by and large people accepted Bush as president. After 9/11 he had approval ratings off the chart and they stayed high until he started a misguided war in Iraq.

Not to mention after Bush vs Gore (5-4 SC decision), Gore made a very public concession and didn't continue to claim he was really the winner.

[oldbrian]

Does anyone else remember the "Charleton Heston is MY president" bumper stickers, or was that only in my (very rural) area?

[rightleft22]

There was a time when you could believe in something without proof. You could proselytize your belief without any evidence. Those days are gone. I wonder how that's going to bode for God.

I think this reasoning speaks volumes and how it could happen that a man is followed as if a god., or if not a god infallible.
A odd mixture of Religion, distorted concept of faith, and politics.

To hand over ones power (vote) to political leader who you accept will create policies and react based on beliefs that they can't back up with facts or prove and not see that a dangerous boggles the mind. But then such reasoning has nothing to do with the mind.   

[Fenring]

2000 was decided by 500 votes and poor ballot design in Florida. It was the first presidential election in nearly a century where the winner of the popular vote did not also win the electoral vote. People made that distinction but by and large people accepted Bush as president. After 9/11 he had approval ratings off the chart and they stayed high until he started a misguided war in Iraq.

Not to mention after Bush vs Gore (5-4 SC decision), Gore made a very public concession and didn't continue to claim he was really the winner.

The causes for that incident are a bit beside the point, although it's worth noting that there was more than a little "he's not my President" in the air at the time. It was nothing like things are now in scale, but there was something analogous to 2016 there where a guy who "shouldn't be the president" appeared to win and this in itself opened up the mindset of "is there anything we co do about this?" They would have thought that regardless of the Florida situation IMO. That being said, as the first incident of this sort in recent history I think it sowed the seeds for what would come later. Even if the cause of this one was a coincidental event, the fact that it happened allowed it to be foundational for future questionings of this kind.

[Wayward Son]

Somehow I remember a member saying how everyone of Obamas actions being retroactively declared illegal once he was proven to be born in Kenya, as we all know he was, was being discussed during the Obama Presidency.  I recall nothing even remotely similar when Trump was elected, even if some declared he was not "my" President.

There seems to be a big difference there.

[cherrypoptart]

Guilty.

That's a big IF though. Let's say it wasn't Obama. Let's say for hypothetical purposes that it was a white guy or even Trump and it turns out unbeknownst to him and everyone else that he was switched soon after birth and he was actually born in Russia to Russian parents and is a Russian. If someone isn't a natural born citizen and so cannot legally be President but that's not discovered until after they've taken office and signed laws then what would be the proper and legal thing to happen in such a case?

People make everything about Obama out to be something personal and even racist. Sometimes it's just about the law and the Constitution.

[NobleHunter]

You're glossing over the racial animosity behind the persistence of birtherism.

As for the status of any laws signed by a changeling President, I think it depends on your theory of legal validity. Assuming no one knew of the President's status as ineligible and due diligence had been done to ensure it, it seems reasonable to treat the acts signed and passed in good faith as good law. I think there must be a legal principle of pretending something is true for the sake of convenience, assuming that the laws would simply be signed and passed again. I probably favour this view.

The other option seems to be to treat all bills signed by the changeling as unsigned, which I think invokes rules about timeframes and pocket veto and sessions of Congress. Some laws would still be good, albeit taking effect at a different time, other acts could still be signed by the Vice President if they hadn't expired or taken affect and some would need to go through Congress again having essentially suffered a pocket veto. This seems like a giant mess and would benefit lawyers more than the nation.

[cherrypoptart]

"You're glossing over the racial animosity behind the persistence of birtherism."

Exactly. Because there is none.

It wouldn't matter if the guy was born in Kenya or Russia or Ireland or good old merry England itself.

Just listening to NPR today and racism and white supremacy is all they are talking about. That's going to be something permeating the entirety of the Biden administration apparently, just as I guess the left used it for the entirety of Trump's administration. Racism this, racism that. Everything is about racism. Covid. Climate change. Pollution. Vaccinations. Healthcare. Space exploration. Food. Literally nothing can be discussed without tying racism into it someway or other.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and sometimes a birth certificate is just a birth certificate. I know the left will never believe that so whatever.

[cherrypoptart]

Okay, so probably it won't be believed that racism wasn't behind the birther thing. All I can say is just imagine then if the birthplace was England instead of Kenya and the guy in question was completely white. Is the assertion really that if that was the case the birther people would have been just like, "Well the guy is white and it's England so that's okay then." Really? Because if people think that's what would have happened then I give up.

[Wayward Son]

Okay, so probably it won't be believed that racism wasn't behind the birther thing. All I can say is just imagine then if the birthplace was England instead of Kenya and the guy in question was completely white. Is the assertion really that if that was the case the birther people would have been just like, "Well the guy is white and it's England so that's okay then." Really? Because if people think that's what would have happened then I give up.

No, cherry, because if the guy was white and from England, the false accusation would have never gained any traction.  It would have been dismissed immediately, instead of still having a sizable group of people believing and repeating the lie.

Because what is so terrible about a white President?  I mean, it's called the White House for a reason, isn't it? 

[Aris Katsaris]

Okay, so probably it won't be believed that racism wasn't behind the birther thing. All I can say is just imagine then if the birthplace was England instead of Kenya and the guy in question was completely white. Is the assertion really that if that was the case the birther people would have been just like, "Well the guy is white and it's England so that's okay then." Really? Because if people think that's what would have happened then I give up.

Why go with the hypothetical, when we have the actual case of John McCain, who some evidence indicates was born in Panama?

See, he was white, so there was so very little interest in his case. People didn't care, and you didn't even remember McCain might not be a natural born citizen. Nobody asked to see his long-form birth certificate.

Or will you pretend there was a ruckus about McCain's birthplace that was one hundredth that for Obama's?

[DonaldD]

Just listening to NPR today and racism and white supremacy is all they are talking about.

I feel for you cherry - I really do.  But the unfortunate fact is that a lot of Trump's supporters - I won't say most, it's not everybody, but unfortunately a large number of folks - are openly racist White spupremacists.  And as long as mainstream Republicans accept them into the fold, and don't actively purge them and make them unwelcome, then you will continue to be tarred with that same brush.

[TheDeamon]

Why go with the hypothetical, when we have the actual case of John McCain, who some evidence indicates was born in Panama?

IIRC, it would have been at a US Military Hospital in the Panama Canal Zone which was controlled as American Territory (on loan) within Panama.

Further, his parents were there on assignment by the United States Government.

He's the cleanest case for "natural born citizen of the United States." Normal and obvious processes were used for his US Citizenship being established.

Ted Cruz would be a more entertaining one, as he was born in Alberta and had dual US/Canada citizenship until it became an issue in 2016 and he renounced his Canadian citizenship.. His parents were up there working one of the Albertan Oil Fields.

But once again, normal and obvious processes were used to allow Ted Cruz to retain "natural born citizenship of the United States" by way of his mother.

And honestly, the Ted Cruz example is and after the fact demonstration of why I had no issue with Obama's birth certificate. I dare you to find me commenting differently.

But I will say that questioning the particulars of the process for Obama's Birth certificate is valid enough, given his publicist was advertising him as a Kenyan Citizen by birth up until he ran for PotUS. It's dumb, and moot for me as his mother was American, but that doesn't mean his mother actually used the processes that were available to her.

[cherrypoptart]

I guess I can't speak for all white people but I don't just assume that because someone is white that necessarily means they were born in America. If a white person had the same kind of circumstances that Obama had where there were questions I wouldn't just assume they had to have been born in America just because of the color of their skin. Most people understand that white people can be born all over the world. There are even white African-Americans like Charlize Theron. Could Charlize Theron be President just because she is white? Would everyone just assume that she was a natural born American just because of the color of her skin? Not likely.

[cherrypoptart]

Conversely, I'm sure even racists understand that just because someone is black doesn't mean they were born in Africa. It almost seems like the people making the accusations that those questioning Obama's birthplace were often racists don't understand that it wasn't just because he was a black guy. I mean, if it had been Morgan Freeman or Denzel Washington or even Kanye West do people on the left really thing anyone would be saying oh those guys might not have been born in America because they are black? I feel sorry for the people who see a racist under every rock and behind every tree and in everything that happens in America.

[Aris Katsaris]

Why go with the hypothetical, when we have the actual case of John McCain, who some evidence indicates was born in Panama?

IIRC, it would have been at a US Military Hospital in the Panama Canal Zone which was controlled as American Territory (on loan) within Panama

But miraculously no long form birth certificate was requested to prove that's where he was born. His claimed birthplace was just accepted.

[yossarian22c]

Just listening to NPR today and racism and white supremacy is all they are talking about. That's going to be something permeating the entirety of the Biden administration apparently, just as I guess the left used it for the entirety of Trump's administration. Racism this, racism that. Everything is about racism. Covid. Climate change. Pollution. Vaccinations. Healthcare. Space exploration. Food. Literally nothing can be discussed without tying racism into it someway or other.

I don't find constant discussion of racism outside of the context of discussing a specific problem or policy that helpful. But Trump rioters didn't help matters by parading the confederate flag through the US capital. Its hard to avoid the racial component when that type of thing is going on.

[TheDeamon]

I don't find constant discussion of racism outside of the context of discussing a specific problem or policy that helpful. But Trump rioters didn't help matters by parading the confederate flag through the US capital. Its hard to avoid the racial component when that type of thing is going on.

 

I find the flag tacky and in poor taste, and I can completely understand why many find the flag deeply offensive. But pretending that the deeply offensive usage of that flag is the only usage for it is a bridge too far. I have doubts that the people waving that flag around in Washington DC that day were doing so for the reasons being ascribed to them. I served with people from the South while in the Military, as true to stereotype, a lot of them hail from Texas. And my interactions predate the new woke-ness becoming a thing.

It probably didn't mean what you think it meant.

But likewise for the people waving it around: It probably didn't mean what they thought it meant either.

I'll freely concede that it is entirely possible that some of the people on the Hill that day were White Nationalists/Supremacists and they did mean what you thought they did. But I'm more inclined to suspect they weren't the guys with the Confederate flags.

[DonaldD]

One of the great things about Trump is that he's managed to normalize racism in such a way that folks feel comfortable expressing the racism openly. So you've got people proudly calling themselves White nationalists, and claiming everything good about the country was done by white folk, expressing pride in being white and the purity of big white and espousing the separation of races and thinking that's not racism.

You've got folks in the crowd attacking the Capitol wearing "6 million were not enough" and "Auschwitz" t-shirts and you've got them yelling racial epithets and abuse at the black police officers.

You've even got even members of the federal legislature  flashing white power symbols.

In the past, in Charlottesville, you had the same people parading around with tiki torches, and even then there were some people here claiming "oh there was no racist overtone to that" either.

Now, is it possible that the people wearing and waving Confederate symbols in a riot otherwise rife with white supremacist and racist idiots were completely ignorant of the racist symbology in the Confederate branding?

Sure, and I've got a bridge to sell you, too.

[Aris Katsaris]

When I hold or display an EU flag, it's an indication I admire the EU, love what it stands for, and wish it to endure and prosper.

When I see people with Nazi Germany flags, I take it as indication they admire Nazi Germany, love what Nazi Germany stood for, and would have wished Nazi Germany to have endured (by winning WW2).

When I see people with Confederacy flags, I take it as indication they admire the Confederacy, love what the Confederacy stood for, and would have wished it to have endured (by winning the Civil War).

Similarly in my country if I see people with the emblems of the 7-year military junta, I'd consider them people who admire and would support the junta. If I see people with the flag of Byzantium I'd think them people who'd admire and would support the Byzantine Empire.

Some things are simple enough in what meaning they are communicating. Flags are easy: They mean 'I admire and support this thing represented here."

[Grant]

When I see people with Confederacy flags, I take it as indication they admire the Confederacy, love what the Confederacy stood for, and would have wished it to have endured (by winning the Civil War).

I dunno, Aris.  Southern "Good ole boy" culture is pretty weird and probably doesn't fit into anything perfectly clear cut.  The best way to understand it is to read William Faulkner. 

You have this entire defeated people.  They mostly know they were wrong and their children know that as well.  But they can't quite take this to the point where they hate themselves, or hate their forebears, especially when they're still able to grow up with them and know them to not be boogeymen.  No matter how much they may admit they were wrong, and they can, the one thing they can't do is hate themselves or their forebears more than they hate yankees.  I think that's somewhat easy to understand when their only experience with Yankees is getting shot by them, they kill your relatives, and the ones you meet that come down south love to tell you how much better they are than you.  I mean, does anybody from down south really like anybody from Massachusetts or New Jersey or Ohio or Pennsylvania? 

There is a bunch of racism that gets thrown in there.   It's mostly soft racism but it's still wrong. 

Things are a bit different today then they used to be.  It's mostly a political statement by younger people rather than a kind of heritage or culture statement it used to be.  I know how you guys hate to hear that these people just had Confederate Flags because they saw it as a southern symbol, that they don't support slavery, they don't support secession, and they're not all huge racists, but you should try and meet some of them.  They just love being "good ole boys".  They love their pickup trucks and they love hunting and they love fishing and they love drinking cheap domestic beer and bourbon and they love NASCAR and yes, they love the United States of America.  They're pretty good in a fight.  They're friendly.  They just don't like yankees and liberals.  Some of them still don't like Catholics and Jews.  Most of them like black folks more than Catholics or Jews or liberals. 

Of course, the worst part is that you got the real hardcore racists like the KKK that love to wave the Confed flag because they know all the good ole boys love it too.  They wave it because they're trying to garner support.  But they're the worst of the worst. 

All this gets thrown out the window when you talk about weirdos from Michigan or Wisconsin flying Confederate flags.  They got no excuse.  None of the above applies to them.  They're just racists and haters in general. 

[DonaldD]

I would agree with all of that, Grant, but I would caution that there is a not-insignificant overlap of good-ole-boys and soft anti-Black/Jew/Catholic racism, the kind of thing that wouldn't be obvious until triggered - by anger, but dispossession, by conspiracy, whatever.

[msquared]

I always wondered about all of the confederate statues in the north.  I know the Daughters of the Confederacy got most of them installed, but for the life of me I do not know why city commissions in the north agreed to them? I mean we fought them in the  Civil war. why would we want to put statues up honoring their dead leaders.

[Grant]

I would agree with all of that, Grant, but I would caution that there is a not-insignificant overlap of good-ole-boys and soft anti-Black/Jew/Catholic racism, the kind of thing that wouldn't be obvious until triggered - by anger, but dispossession, by conspiracy, whatever.

Oh no.  I wouldn't argue otherwise.  I thought I made clear that the good ole boy culture does come with a bunch of that soft racism.  I always found it silly and disheartening in youth but a serious problem in older individuals.  They should know better.  The young just are spitting back what they've been told. 

Nevertheless, the soft racists are typically self contradictory and in my opinion not that big a problem when it comes to discrimination, though they are problematic in the way their beliefs can take their politics. 

[Grant]

I always wondered about all of the confederate statues in the north.  I know the Daughters of the Confederacy got most of them installed, but for the life of me I do not know why city commissions in the north agreed to them? I mean we fought them in the  Civil war. why would we want to put statues up honoring their dead leaders.

I have no idea.  I can deal with Bo and Luke Duke but I can't deal with Bob from Green Bay.  To them it's just about racism.  There is no connection to "the south" or "being southern" or any of that crap.  Even if their grandpappy served with JEB Stuart, they're in the wrong part of the country to get away with that crap.  Move to Wisconsin, become a Wisconsan. 

[rightleft22]

Interesting post Grant

I've often wondered if the soft racisms isn't the worst kind. You don't really consider yourself a racist while at the same time in a way enabling the status quo to remain the status quo and become systemic.

I have no issue with 'good old boy's'  however if I knew the symbol I related to as something positive was related by others as really negative I'd have to ask myself why I was clinging to the symbol and if it didn't reveal something not so 'soft' about me.

[Grant]

You don't really consider yourself a racist while at the same time in a way enabling the status quo to remain the status quo and become systemic.

I have no clue what you're talking about which may indeed prove some point to yourself.  I tend to challenge soft racism where I find it.  I did it when I was young and generally continue to do so with peers. 

I have no issue with 'good old boy's'  however if I knew the symbol I related to as something positive was related by others as really negative I'd have to ask myself why I was clinging to the symbol and if it didn't reveal something not so 'soft' about me.

Ask Bo and Luke.  All I can say is that symbols can mean much different things for different people and if you're going to play relativism than nobody can win.  Do we really want to start the battle over the Mexican kids who saw the US Flag as a negative symbol?  See what happens with the "OK" symbol?  I think we should probably focus more on actions rather than symbols such as what flag some dude likes and stop generalizing in general. 

[TheDrake]

This Nazi flag doesn't mean I'm a racist, I'm just celebrating my German heritage, eh?

[Grant]

This Nazi flag doesn't mean I'm a racist, I'm just celebrating my German heritage, eh?

 

[rightleft22]

I was thinking more personally.
I grew up in the 70's  and would have not have considered myself a racist but in hind sight via ignorance or not caring suspect the label of soft racist would fit.
If I was a in your face racist I suspect I would have been confronted but as a soft racist It has taken some time. Its why I think it worse, I was the guy, and I suspect we are the majority, that would just watch, maybe shake my head and wish things were different, but never do anything.

Actually it was on this site where I was confronted.  Learn better do better.

Interesting book 'The Metaphors We Live By'  most of which are unconscious. that task I think as it concerns the symbolism of flags is to become conscious of not just what they mean to us but others.

[Grant]

I was thinking more personally.
I grew up in the 70's  and would have not have considered myself a racist but in hind sight via ignorance or not caring suspect the label of soft racist would fit.

Most of the soft racists I knew when I was young are all now pretty strong liberals.  Getting out in the world and meeting these people are what makes the difference.  Getting out of High School.  Getting out of your home town.  Getting away from your family. 

[rightleft22]

I was thinking more personally.
I grew up in the 70's  and would have not have considered myself a racist but in hind sight via ignorance or not caring suspect the label of soft racist would fit.

Most of the soft racists I knew when I was young are all now pretty strong liberals.  Getting out in the world and meeting these people are what makes the difference.  Getting out of High School.  Getting out of your home town.  Getting away from your family.

Very true, At the last family reunion there was noticeable difference between those that stayed home and those that moved away.

[rightleft22]

Man's achievements rest upon the use of symbols.... we must consider ourselves as a symbolic, semantic class of life, and those who rule the symbols, rule us. - Alfred Korzybski

There are two ways to slide easily through life; to believe everything or doubt everything. Both ways save us from thinking - Alfred Korzybski

As words are not the things we speak about, and structure is the only link between them, structure becomes the only content of knowledge. If we gamble on verbal structures that have no observable empirical structures, such gambling can never give us any structural information about the world. Therefore such verbal structures are structurally obsolete, and if we believe in them, they induce delusions or other semantic disturbances.

[LetterRip]

I think there is quite a bit of difference between associating with a symbol when you've no idea of its meaning (ie kids thinking the General Lee is cool during watching Dukes of Hazard) and associating with a symbol once you are old enough to understand its history and implications in society (adults and teens using the Confederate flag or Nazi flag).

I tend to agree about most cases of 'soft racist' being about a lack of positive exposure.  Other forms of bigotry as well.  Many people in small towns have formed their negative impressions based on a combination of their media and news consumption (conservative media mention of minorities is overwhelmingly focused on crime.  The ratio of non-white criminals vs white is probably 5:1 but in the US about 70% of arrests are of white individuals.  It seems difficult for this to be the case without racism by those selecting which stories to publish).

[Wayward Son]

Conversely, I'm sure even racists understand that just because someone is black doesn't mean they were born in Africa. It almost seems like the people making the accusations that those questioning Obama's birthplace were often racists don't understand that it wasn't just because he was a black guy. I mean, if it had been Morgan Freeman or Denzel Washington or even Kanye West do people on the left really thing anyone would be saying oh those guys might not have been born in America because they are black? I feel sorry for the people who see a racist under every rock and behind every tree and in everything that happens in America.

The problem is not, cherry, that Obama was accused of being born in Kenya, and so not qualified to be President.  The problem is that long after it was proven that he was born in Hawaii--after his birth certificate was released, after his long-form birth certificate was released, and after his birth announcement in a Hawaiian newspaper at the time was pointed out--people still repeated the lie that he was born in Kenya.  I believe you voted for one such person, twice if I don't miss my guess. 

Why would any large group of people continue to believe such an obvious lie long after it was disproven?  Do you think they'd believe that about McCain?  About Hillary?  About someone who looks like an average white American?

It's impossible to know for certain exactly why so many people were so stupid as to believe that obvious lie.  Was it purely political?  Was it because prominent people repeated the lie so often?  Or was it because Obama didn't look like a red-blooded white American?  It was probably all three.  But being black certainly helped perpetuate that vile lie long after it should have died in the popular culture.

[cherrypoptart]

It probably doesn't help that it looked like the government of the state of Hawaii was trying to cover something up. Their state government denied access to all citizens from even getting a copy of their own long form birth certificates. Why did the state of Hawaii do that? Has any other state government done that? They said even if Obama, or anyone, came down there in person and asked for their own information they could not get it under any circumstances. And then they said they made an exception for Obama. What is that?

Our press still hasn't given us answers about it. When did the state of Hawaii change their rules regarding people having access to their own information? Why did they do that? What kind of government does that? And don't say it's money because they can easily just charge a fee to have a copy made. None of it made any sense. And that's just one part of it. Then you have the records at the National Archives for the week of his birth all messed up. And you have his own publisher on his own bio which it's impossible to believe Obama himself didn't know about and choose not to correct saying he was born in Kenya. Obama still hasn't released his college documents that would show whether he did or did not apply as an American citizen or a foreigner. On any college document such as admission or application for student aid did Obama himself ever indicate he was a foreigner? We still don't know that and probably never will. Obviously that has no effect on whether or not he was actually born in America but it's still shifty. Obama still refuses to release his college records. If you or I apply for a job our boss will see all of our college records. Obama's boss was the American people and yet he refuses to show us the same information we'd have to show him if we wanted to work for the government. When you refuse to be transparent you have no right to expect trust. If you had all of that kind of stuff going on with a white person they'd have gotten the same treatment as Obama. It was just a bunch of shady business and so of course that's going to lead people to be skeptical and it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with racism.

[LetterRip]

Federal law limits access to birth records,

Are Birth Records Public Information?
Across most U.S.states, birth records are restricted from public access. In selected states or jurisdictions, birth records are closed until specified periods have elapsed; this may range from 25-100 years. Pursuant to federal public record laws, persons eligible to access birth records include:
The subject of the record (if they are 18 or older)
The registrant’s parents/legal guardian (s) (provided they are named on the record)
Immediate family members of the subject ( if they are deceased)
Persons who are authorized by court order
Legal representatives of eligible persons.

https://staterecords.org/vital.php

So Hawai'i was following the law - without a court order there isn't legal access to them aside from the individual or their parents. If someone implied Hawai'i was acting shady - they lied to you.

As to long form - if there isn't a predefined system in place they wouldn't be able to access them without extensive effort.  So accessing it takes extraordinary procedures and thus in general any government will refuse to do unnecessary extra work without very good reason.

[yossarian22c]

...
On any college document such as admission or application for student aid did Obama himself ever indicate he was a foreigner? We still don't know that and probably never will. Obviously that has no effect on whether or not he was actually born in America but it's still shifty. Obama still refuses to release his college records.
...

Trump hasn't released any of those document either. He in fact threatened the relevant colleges with law suits should any of his records be released. Are we sure Trump wasn't adopted from an orphanage in Europe as a baby and isn't really a natural born citizen? How about Trump's medical records for his bone spurs in dodging the draft? How about his tax returns he promised? He released none of that. Obama released all the information about his birth certificate. You just chose not to believe it.

[Wayward Son]

Their state government denied access to all citizens from even getting a copy of their own long form birth certificates. Why did the state of Hawaii do that?

Because no one needed to see a long form.  Because the short form is the official birth certificate for all Hawaiians.  The long forms are archive records, completely reflected in the short forms.  There's no reason for anyone to look at them.

Only because some people refused to accept the short form was it necessary to release the long form--even after the state official attested to seeing it.  And even that did not help. 

Our press still hasn't given us answers about it.

Gee, then how did I figure it out?

When did the state of Hawaii change their rules regarding people having access to their own information?

Doubtlessly when they told everyone that the long form was no longer the legal birth certificate, and you don't need to see it anymore. 

And you have his own publisher on his own bio which it's impossible to believe Obama himself didn't know about and choose not to correct saying he was born in Kenya.

Oh, wow.  Obama couldn't have possibly known that a publicity pamphlet had his birthplace wrong?  One that had a bunch of other writers listed on it?  You think he reviewed with a fine-toothed comb every piece of paper from his publisher about him?  If a booklet on authors of a publisher identified Trump as born in Canada, would you expect him to have to release his original birth certificate? 

Obama still refuses to release his college records.

Neither has Trump, and we don't doubt he graduated.  Trump hasn't released his tax returns like to promised he would.  Obviously we can assume he's hiding something, right?

When you refuse to be transparent you have no right to expect trust. If you had all of that kind of stuff going on with a white person they'd have gotten the same treatment as Obama. It was just a bunch of shady business and so of course that's going to lead people to be skeptical and it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with racism.

And Trump was shadier and less transparent than Obama.  So where were all these people who thought, and some who still think, that Obama was born in Kenya when Trump was in office?  Why didn't we hear the same people calling for transparency in Trump's taxes, in answering subpoenas, in seeing Trump's finances to make sure he wasn't benefiting from being President?  Why did they trust Trump more than Obama?  Was it because Trump had the same color of skin as they?

There was more than enough proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, in spite of all the overblown "questions" and "lack of transparency" about it.  But people still believed he was hiding "the truth about his birthplace."  Why did they think the government of Hawaii, his relatives, and every official in the United States were conspiring to hide the supposed truth about him?  Why do some still believe that?  Why would they believe that about a person who looks like he was born in this country? 

Unless he doesn't look like he was born in America.  And what part of him looks like that?

[TheDeamon]

I always wondered about all of the confederate statues in the north.  I know the Daughters of the Confederacy got most of them installed, but for the life of me I do not know why city commissions in the north agreed to them? I mean we fought them in the  Civil war. why would we want to put statues up honoring their dead leaders.

I will have to throw this bit out there, slavery is wrong. But rendering the south and their support for slavery to be equivalent to the Nazi's is not objectively valid. The South didn't commit genocide. The South didn't wage a war of conquest. The South didn't carry out indiscriminate attacks against civilian populations(although they probably would have, if the tech was available to them).

But by the same token, if the Daughters of the Confederacy managed to get Northern communities to agree to putting memorials up in their town, don't you think that the Grand Army of the Republic and its associates might have had something to say about it too? They actually fought against those people, had friends and associates die to them. Yet they left it alone. If they set it aside and moved on, don't you think we should be able to as well?

[DonaldD]

But rendering the south and their support for slavery to be equivalent to the Nazi's is not objectively valid.

I suppose not - they were not equivalent - but in some ways, slavery was worse.

[Aris Katsaris]

I will have to throw this bit out there, slavery is wrong. But rendering the south and their support for slavery to be equivalent to the Nazi's is not objectively valid. The South didn't commit genocide. The South didn't wage a war of conquest. The South didn't carry out indiscriminate attacks against civilian populations(although they probably would have, if the tech was available to them).

No two examples will ever be the exact same. Try to figure out the parallel we're trying to draw for you here instead of pinpointing differences.  Yes I do believe the Nazis were worse with possibly the 1st most evil cause in human history, but the Confederacy had arguably the 2nd most evil cause in human history instead.

So I kinda consider the Confederate flag, the second most evil flag a person can raise, second only after the nazi flag.

Also "the South didn't wage a war of conquest", well yeah, it failed to even gain independence, so it didn't have the time for that. But its advocates weren't *opposed* to wars of conquest, and in fact were the chief proponents of such when the United States were still united. If the South had had its way, the United States (and later the Confederacy if successful) *would* have attempted to grab new territories from Latin America with new wars of conquest:

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/20360/confederacys-plan-conquer-latin-america

During the Civil War, Confederate agents attempted to destabilize Mexico so that its territories would be easy to snatch up after the war. One rebel emissary to Mexico City, John T. Pickett, secretly fomented rebellion in several Mexican provinces with an eye to "the permanent possession of that beautiful country." Pickett's mission ended in failure in 1861, but fate dealt the South a better hand in 1863. French Emperor Napoleon III seized Mexico, and the move provided the South with a perfect excuse to "liberate" the country after the Civil War.

Of course, Mexico was just part of the pie that the South hoped to inherit. Confederate leaders also had their eyes squarely on Brazil—a country of 3 million square miles and more than 8 million people. Prior to the outbreak of the war, Matthew Maury, one of the forces behind the U.S. Naval Academy, dispatched two Navy officers to the Amazon basin, ostensibly to map the river for shipping. Instead, they were secretly plotting domination and collecting data about separatist movements in the region. When the South lost the war, Maury refused to abandon his plans. He helped up to 20,000 ex-rebels flee to Brazil, where they established the Confederate colonies of New Texas and Americana.

----

But by the same token, if the Daughters of the Confederacy managed to get Northern communities to agree to putting memorials up in their town, don't you think that the Grand Army of the Republic and its associates might have had something to say about it too? They actually fought against those people, had friends and associates die to them. Yet they left it alone. If they set it aside and moved on, don't you think we should be able to as well?

The primary sin of the Confederacy was the one against *black* people, the people they kept as slaves, not the white soldiers they fought against.

If it wasn't for slavery, the Confederacy's pursuit of independence would have been their right. It's slavery and slavery alone that changed the moral equation of their cause and their war.

So, no, white Northerners in the 1800s or 1900s choosing to allow statues to Confederate generals doesn't mean squat. It's black people who should get to decide whether those monuments stand or fall.