|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 01 2017 22:57 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2017 22:45 oBlade wrote:On November 01 2017 12:19 Plansix wrote:
This shit is an insult to our country. 10th grade history pretty much shits all over this. But the White House is going to regurgitate this lie for however long they are in office. Dog whistle racism at its finest, coming from the Oval Office. I can usually at least see the pretense for calling something racist but I'm at a loss for connecting the dots to how racism can be squeezed out of this, can someone give me the idea? I'm also surprised it would be important to accept that war is inevitable, that's frightening and otherwise doesn't sound like what I think of as being left-wing, it's not a great mindset for dealing with the volatility in the world. + Show Spoiler +It was obviously not an accurate sum-up of the primary cause (and compromise would've enshrined slavery as an institution for many years to come, even if somehow war might've been postponed). But these howling journos have to go beyond saying he was wrong and he put his foot in his mouth to ascend to John Kelly is a racist.
There's a good chance Kelly is racist, there's 0 doubt what he said was racist.
Also:
|
On November 02 2017 00:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2017 22:57 Danglars wrote:On November 01 2017 22:45 oBlade wrote:On November 01 2017 12:19 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/christinawilkie/status/925436816475516933This shit is an insult to our country. 10th grade history pretty much shits all over this. But the White House is going to regurgitate this lie for however long they are in office. Dog whistle racism at its finest, coming from the Oval Office. I can usually at least see the pretense for calling something racist but I'm at a loss for connecting the dots to how racism can be squeezed out of this, can someone give me the idea? I'm also surprised it would be important to accept that war is inevitable, that's frightening and otherwise doesn't sound like what I think of as being left-wing, it's not a great mindset for dealing with the volatility in the world. https://twitter.com/bdomenech/status/925231913228472320+ Show Spoiler +It was obviously not an accurate sum-up of the primary cause (and compromise would've enshrined slavery as an institution for many years to come, even if somehow war might've been postponed). But these howling journos have to go beyond saying he was wrong and he put his foot in his mouth to ascend to John Kelly is a racist. There's a good chance Kelly is racist, there's 0 doubt what he said was racist. Also: https://twitter.com/JoeNBC/status/925673624857726976
You're making an absolute killing of the term. Also nice random factoid!
|
On November 01 2017 23:02 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2017 22:56 Twinkle Toes wrote:On November 01 2017 22:44 zlefin wrote:On November 01 2017 22:35 Twinkle Toes wrote:Why did Comey make that appearance that hurt Clinton's chances at such a crucial time during the election? I'm thinking they assume letting Trump win and removing him later is easier that letting Clinton win and moving against her. We live in such strange times. that's an odd thing to think; clinton wouldn't have needed removing. also, such a plan is needlessly convoluted, and is far from a sure thing anyways. occam's razor would stick to the far simpler explanation: he did it to cover himself, in a situation where there was no good choice, he had to pick one. Comey did it to cover himself? I don't follow... He was on record saying the investigation was over. New information became available that they had to look at. So he made a statement saying exactly that. If he hadn't then he would failed at correctly informing Congress and been blasted for that. Which he explained when he was heard by the Senate Intelligence Committee after his firing.
Wow. Clinton got undone by mere bureaucracy.
|
|
|
Can we come up with some theoretical ways you can compromise on whether blacks are actually people or not? The most bizarre thing about his statement is how utterly impossible compromise would be. Either blacks are 100% equal or they are not. It blows my mind that this isn't getting more attention because it's like he is saying there's nothing wrong with blacks being legally unequal. Not even saying "Ya know, stuff like affirmative action doesn't account for stuff like cultural differences", which is of course really shitty, but more so the kinda thing your senile grandpa says at thanksgiving dinner. But flat out saying it is acceptable for blacks to be less than whites in any way whatsoever, at a federal level. my god.
Is the compromise the just move the timeline a bit? Just give the South another year and then they'll totally stop treating humans like animals??
|
On November 02 2017 00:35 Twinkle Toes wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2017 23:02 Gorsameth wrote:On November 01 2017 22:56 Twinkle Toes wrote:On November 01 2017 22:44 zlefin wrote:On November 01 2017 22:35 Twinkle Toes wrote:Why did Comey make that appearance that hurt Clinton's chances at such a crucial time during the election? I'm thinking they assume letting Trump win and removing him later is easier that letting Clinton win and moving against her. We live in such strange times. that's an odd thing to think; clinton wouldn't have needed removing. also, such a plan is needlessly convoluted, and is far from a sure thing anyways. occam's razor would stick to the far simpler explanation: he did it to cover himself, in a situation where there was no good choice, he had to pick one. Comey did it to cover himself? I don't follow... He was on record saying the investigation was over. New information became available that they had to look at. So he made a statement saying exactly that. If he hadn't then he would failed at correctly informing Congress and been blasted for that. Which he explained when he was heard by the Senate Intelligence Committee after his firing. Wow. Clinton got undone by mere bureaucracy.
Hillary was undone by a combination of a lot of factors, some of which she could have controlled/done different and others she could not.
|
On November 02 2017 00:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Can we come up with some theoretical ways you can compromise on whether blacks are actually people or not? The most bizarre thing about his statement is how utterly impossible compromise would be. Either blacks are 100% equal or they are not. It blows my mind that this isn't getting more attention because it's like he is saying there's nothing wrong with blacks being legally unequal. Not even saying "Ya know, stuff like affirmative action doesn't account for stuff like cultural differences", which is of course really shitty, but more so the kinda thing your senile grandpa says at thanksgiving dinner. But flat out saying it is acceptable for blacks to be less than whites in any way whatsoever, at a federal level. my god.
Is the compromise the just move the timeline a bit? Just give the South another year and then they'll totally stop treating humans like animals??
Well, there was the 3/5 compromise.
|
Remember when Jeff Sessions killed all immigration talks and reform because it might lead to DACA being approved or some sort of compromise on a path to citizenship?
Also, anyone remember when Obama instantly blamed Republicans when terrorist attacks took place, calling them out by name?
|
On November 02 2017 00:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 00:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 01 2017 22:57 Danglars wrote:On November 01 2017 22:45 oBlade wrote:On November 01 2017 12:19 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/christinawilkie/status/925436816475516933This shit is an insult to our country. 10th grade history pretty much shits all over this. But the White House is going to regurgitate this lie for however long they are in office. Dog whistle racism at its finest, coming from the Oval Office. I can usually at least see the pretense for calling something racist but I'm at a loss for connecting the dots to how racism can be squeezed out of this, can someone give me the idea? I'm also surprised it would be important to accept that war is inevitable, that's frightening and otherwise doesn't sound like what I think of as being left-wing, it's not a great mindset for dealing with the volatility in the world. https://twitter.com/bdomenech/status/925231913228472320+ Show Spoiler +It was obviously not an accurate sum-up of the primary cause (and compromise would've enshrined slavery as an institution for many years to come, even if somehow war might've been postponed). But these howling journos have to go beyond saying he was wrong and he put his foot in his mouth to ascend to John Kelly is a racist. There's a good chance Kelly is racist, there's 0 doubt what he said was racist. Also: https://twitter.com/JoeNBC/status/925673624857726976 You're making an absolute killing of the term. Also nice random factoid!
Well a Nazi terrorist killed someone at a protest honoring Lee and Trump suggested there were "some very fine" people trying to preserve a celebratory statue of probably the most prolific killer of Americans in our history in order to protect the South's "right" to slavery. Which, by the way, was unconstitutional until the 13th amendment.
The North compromised away the essence of the Constitution for almost a century before the south said "More slaves or we will slaughter US citizens"
Then Kelly tells us Lee wasn't such a bad guy, so I think I'm being extremely fair not presuming he is racist, but only an idiot could come to the conclusion what he said wasn't racist.
On November 02 2017 00:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Can we come up with some theoretical ways you can compromise on whether blacks are actually people or not? The most bizarre thing about his statement is how utterly impossible compromise would be. Either blacks are 100% equal or they are not. It blows my mind that this isn't getting more attention because it's like he is saying there's nothing wrong with blacks being legally unequal. Not even saying "Ya know, stuff like affirmative action doesn't account for stuff like cultural differences", which is of course really shitty, but more so the kinda thing your senile grandpa says at thanksgiving dinner. But flat out saying it is acceptable for blacks to be less than whites in any way whatsoever, at a federal level. my god.
Is the compromise the just move the timeline a bit? Just give the South another year and then they'll totally stop treating humans like animals??
|
United States43799 Posts
On November 02 2017 00:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Can we come up with some theoretical ways you can compromise on whether blacks are actually people or not? The most bizarre thing about his statement is how utterly impossible compromise would be. Either blacks are 100% equal or they are not. It blows my mind that this isn't getting more attention because it's like he is saying there's nothing wrong with blacks being legally unequal. Not even saying "Ya know, stuff like affirmative action doesn't account for stuff like cultural differences", which is of course really shitty, but more so the kinda thing your senile grandpa says at thanksgiving dinner. But flat out saying it is acceptable for blacks to be less than whites in any way whatsoever, at a federal level. my god.
Is the compromise the just move the timeline a bit? Just give the South another year and then they'll totally stop treating humans like animals??
You're aware this is basically what happened, right? That the war didn't stop compromising with the south and that after the Union won the compromise was basically "you stay in the United States, but you can still deny blacks all of their citizen rights and exploit them economically".
The thing the north wouldn't compromise on was secession. They were perfectly happy to compromise on equality. They'd been doing it for a century, and they did it for another century after the civil war. Hell, we're still compromising on equality in the south with shit like voter disenfranchisement.
|
On November 02 2017 00:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 00:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Can we come up with some theoretical ways you can compromise on whether blacks are actually people or not? The most bizarre thing about his statement is how utterly impossible compromise would be. Either blacks are 100% equal or they are not. It blows my mind that this isn't getting more attention because it's like he is saying there's nothing wrong with blacks being legally unequal. Not even saying "Ya know, stuff like affirmative action doesn't account for stuff like cultural differences", which is of course really shitty, but more so the kinda thing your senile grandpa says at thanksgiving dinner. But flat out saying it is acceptable for blacks to be less than whites in any way whatsoever, at a federal level. my god.
Is the compromise the just move the timeline a bit? Just give the South another year and then they'll totally stop treating humans like animals?? You're aware this is basically what happened, right? That the war didn't stop compromising with the south and that after the Union won the compromise was basically "you stay in the United States, but you can still deny blacks all of their citizen rights and exploit them economically". The thing the north wouldn't compromise on was secession. They were perfectly happy to compromise on equality. They'd been doing it for a century, and they did it for another century after the civil war. Hell, we're still compromising on equality in the south with shit like voter disenfranchisement.
Never got the 40 acres and a mule either. Oh and when black people managed to get through all the scammers and deplorable human beings that abused the holy hell out of them and get some ownership. White America came through stole land, terrorized towns, and murdered thousands (all that after the civil war).
|
On November 01 2017 23:27 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2017 23:17 Plansix wrote:On November 01 2017 23:09 oBlade wrote:On November 01 2017 22:54 Plansix wrote:On November 01 2017 22:45 oBlade wrote:On November 01 2017 12:19 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/christinawilkie/status/925436816475516933This shit is an insult to our country. 10th grade history pretty much shits all over this. But the White House is going to regurgitate this lie for however long they are in office. Dog whistle racism at its finest, coming from the Oval Office. I can usually at least see the pretense for calling something racist but I'm at a loss for connecting the dots to how racism can be squeezed out of this, can someone give me the idea? I'm also surprised it would be important to accept that war is inevitable, that's frightening and otherwise doesn't sound like what I think of as being left-wing, it's not a great mindset for dealing with the volatility in the world. Claiming that the civil war could have been prevented through some sort of compromise is the historical equivalent of claiming the earth is flat. It flies in the face over overwhelming evidence that no compromise was going to stop that war. The south wants slavery to continue as it was and to expand and the north did not. The myth that those who wanted to end the practice of slavery were aggressive party set on war is complete bullshit and a lie created by racists. Much like the lie that Lee didn’t support slavery(Spoiler: he did.) On November 01 2017 22:47 Zambrah wrote:
I think the premise is that they could've compromised on slavery, as if treating black people as sub-human was ever something that should ever be considered for compromise The entire lead up to the war is Lincoln trying to find some way to stop the war, including paying the south for slaves, shipping back to Africa and even allowing slavery to exist as was, but not expand to new states. None of them worked. The South wanted slavery to expand and for slave ownership to be enforced in the North. They would accept nothing less. That is why we went to war. The key part of that is that the South not only wanted to keep slavery in the south, but wanted their ownership of slaves to be enforced across the entire nation. They were not interested in compromise. I understand how you got there now, you saw "If some individuals had been willing to come to some compromises" and concluded she must have been talking about anyone except the people who exist who you admit weren't willing to compromise, somehow knowing the whole subtext must actually be something to the effect Yankee dogs not making a deal. She and Kelly were talking about the north being “unwilling to compromise.” Kelly said in the same press conference that Lee was an honorable man and we shouldn’t forget his contributions to this country. This ignores that fact that Lee was a traitor who took up arms against his own country. It all an extension of the War of Northern Aggression myth, created by southern racists who refuse to own up to slavery. And who also put up a bunch of statues. The Civil War is not something we need to re-litigate over and over. We're not relitigating the Civil War...
It kinda feels like we are.
|
On November 02 2017 00:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 00:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Can we come up with some theoretical ways you can compromise on whether blacks are actually people or not? The most bizarre thing about his statement is how utterly impossible compromise would be. Either blacks are 100% equal or they are not. It blows my mind that this isn't getting more attention because it's like he is saying there's nothing wrong with blacks being legally unequal. Not even saying "Ya know, stuff like affirmative action doesn't account for stuff like cultural differences", which is of course really shitty, but more so the kinda thing your senile grandpa says at thanksgiving dinner. But flat out saying it is acceptable for blacks to be less than whites in any way whatsoever, at a federal level. my god.
Is the compromise the just move the timeline a bit? Just give the South another year and then they'll totally stop treating humans like animals?? You're aware this is basically what happened, right? That the war didn't stop compromising with the south and that after the Union won the compromise was basically "you stay in the United States, but you can still deny blacks all of their citizen rights and exploit them economically". The thing the north wouldn't compromise on was secession. They were perfectly happy to compromise on equality. They'd been doing it for a century, and they did it for another century after the civil war. Hell, we're still compromising on equality in the south with shit like voter disenfranchisement.
Right, I'm aware of how everything ended up panning out. Certain areas that it was illegal for blacks to buy land and all that other shit. I'm more so asking people who would defend Kelly's comments as not racist what compromises should have been made.
It's just such an empty, bullshit attempt at guilt mitigation. There aren't any compromises Kelly actually had in mind. It is just a way to defend who they see as their own. But this shit was over a hundred years ago. No one has any slight relation to even their grandfather from an ethics perspective. I would argue people have no ethical link to their parents either. It just confuses me. Why in the world do people feel a connection or defensiveness for people who used to live in the same areas!?!? It's just disappointing.
|
|
|
On November 02 2017 01:16 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 00:49 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2017 00:37 Mohdoo wrote:
Can we come up with some theoretical ways you can compromise on whether blacks are actually people or not? The most bizarre thing about his statement is how utterly impossible compromise would be. Either blacks are 100% equal or they are not. It blows my mind that this isn't getting more attention because it's like he is saying there's nothing wrong with blacks being legally unequal. Not even saying "Ya know, stuff like affirmative action doesn't account for stuff like cultural differences", which is of course really shitty, but more so the kinda thing your senile grandpa says at thanksgiving dinner. But flat out saying it is acceptable for blacks to be less than whites in any way whatsoever, at a federal level. my god.
Is the compromise the just move the timeline a bit? Just give the South another year and then they'll totally stop treating humans like animals?? You're aware this is basically what happened, right? That the war didn't stop compromising with the south and that after the Union won the compromise was basically "you stay in the United States, but you can still deny blacks all of their citizen rights and exploit them economically". The thing the north wouldn't compromise on was secession. They were perfectly happy to compromise on equality. They'd been doing it for a century, and they did it for another century after the civil war. Hell, we're still compromising on equality in the south with shit like voter disenfranchisement. Right, I'm aware of how everything ended up panning out. Certain areas that it was illegal for blacks to buy land and all that other shit. I'm more so asking people who would defend Kelly's comments as not racist what compromises should have been made. It's just such an empty, bullshit attempt at guilt mitigation. There aren't any compromises Kelly actually had in mind. It is just a way to defend who they see as their own. But this shit was over a hundred years ago. No one has any slight relation to even their grandfather from an ethics perspective. I would argue people have no ethical link to their parents either. It just confuses me. Why in the world do people feel a connection or defensiveness for people who used to live in the same areas!?!? It's just disappointing.
Because the south did the exact opposite of what Germany did after WW2. They never took ownership of the crimes they committed or that it was wrong. For generations justified and fabricated a history that that both sides were wrong or that they were the victims of an oppressive north. That fictional history persists to this day and is engrained in the culture of the south. That the civil war was not about slavery, that the South was a reasonable party and didn’t support the mass repression and exploitation of an entire race.
|
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171030/11255938512/dead-people-mysteriously-support-fccs-attack-net-neutrality.shtml
We've noted for months how an unknown party has been using bots to bombard the FCC website with entirely bogus support for the agency's planned attack on net neutrality. Inquiries so far have indicated that whatever group or individual is behind the fake support used a bot that automatically pulled names -- in alphabetical order -- from a compromised database of some kind. Earlier this year one reporter actually managed to track down some of these folks -- who say they never filed such comments or in many instances had no idea what net neutrality even is.
Earlier this year, some reporters discovered that some of the biggest fans of the FCC's myopic assault on net neutrality appear to be dead:
"As the war over the fate of America's free and open internet lumbers on, it appears that opponents of net neutrality will do anything in their power to turn control of the internet over to massive telecom companies—including committing fraud. As detailed in a letter sent to the FCC Thursday morning, people are pissed that their personal information was used without their knowledge to post anti-net neutrality comments to the FCC's website, which includes at least two people who are recently deceased."
|
Schumer's response kinda blows ass. If this guy really did come over on a visa system with diversity as an intended goal (rofl), we need to slam the brakes on that. It is obviously stupid. Schumer not even addressing the visa program makes me think it is just some shitty pat on the back sympathy crap. This is a battle democrats are super, super losing right now and it is really disappointing to see them cling on to "NOT ALL MUSLIMS" as if anyone cares about statistics. Sub-par humans make up most of the voters and sub-par humans don't care about statistics. Walk back your unpopular immigration program when it leads to a terrorist attack. Be smart. Listen to people.
|
United States43799 Posts
On November 02 2017 01:29 Mohdoo wrote:Schumer's response kinda blows ass. If this guy really did come over on a visa system with diversity as an intended goal (rofl), we need to slam the brakes on that. It is obviously stupid. Schumer not even addressing the visa program makes me think it is just some shitty pat on the back sympathy crap. This is a battle democrats are super, super losing right now and it is really disappointing to see them cling on to "NOT ALL MUSLIMS" as if anyone cares about statistics. Sub-par humans make up most of the voters and sub-par humans don't care about statistics. Walk back your unpopular immigration program when it leads to a terrorist attack. Be smart. Listen to people.
Are you familiar with the concept of moral leadership?
|
the right might be on to something about the civil war statues and all. Let them be in the open but make sure you add some plaque or inscription to each and every single one of them that puts them into context so you don't get away with statements as the one above from the WH about the civil war.
That way everyone should be happy. Noone is destroying "history" by destroying/putting away statues, as the people on the right like to claim. At the same time if it's clearly written there that it's a statue to remind everyone how awful of a person Robert E Lee was, how many americans died because of him and that it serves as a warning for future generations that should do it's job as well.
|
On November 02 2017 01:29 Mohdoo wrote:Schumer's response kinda blows ass. If this guy really did come over on a visa system with diversity as an intended goal (rofl), we need to slam the brakes on that. It is obviously stupid. Schumer not even addressing the visa program makes me think it is just some shitty pat on the back sympathy crap. This is a battle democrats are super, super losing right now and it is really disappointing to see them cling on to "NOT ALL MUSLIMS" as if anyone cares about statistics. Sub-par humans make up most of the voters and sub-par humans don't care about statistics. Walk back your unpopular immigration program when it leads to a terrorist attack. Be smart. Listen to people.
"Hooray for xenophobia because people are stupid"
You have just been full of garbage takes lately.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
