Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism - Page 8
Register

User Tag List

Page 8 of 17 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 400 of 803
  1. ISO #351
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    This is the most egregious opinion posted in this thread.
    No u
    Actually looking at the Canadian provinces’ flags, those are dope as fuck. They look like actual flags unlike most US state flags. The flag of Quebec, Nova Scotia and Ontario are cool. The flag of BC sucks though.

  2. ISO #352
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Like, the flag of Arkansas is literally a fucking logo...

  3. ISO #353

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by secondpassing View Post
    There was a good portion of this thread discussing Tucker Carlson. It was wrong for me to presume you had read it. Feel free to look back and read the thread or you could watch the video I linked. Here, I'll link it again:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNineSEoxjQ I'm sure Tucker reports fact fairly often, but he also reports facts that are irrelevant, that aren't facts, or misleading. It's good to check sources for accuracy, but it's also good to evaluate information for relevance, recency, and usefulness.

    Someone could classify me as conservative or liberal, but I like to think that I'm doing a good job staying politically neutral. I was confused as to why you thought the video was humorous in the context of the rest of the thread. Was it funny because it's so cringe, or perhaps because you liked Carlson and he nailed someone, or perhaps because Carlson was wasting his time on someone obviously doing something stupid. See, it was hard to tell if you had posted a video with the intent of it being satire.

    Chest-o
    Yea, I only read the last page. I thought Tucker Carlson did a good job blasting him, and I thought he did a good job keeping his face straight, and the bit going like Andy Kaufman.

  4. ISO #354

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    No u
    Actually looking at the Canadian provinces’ flags, those are dope as fuck. They look like actual flags unlike most US state flags. The flag of Quebec, Nova Scotia and Ontario are cool. The flag of BC sucks though.
    The flag of Ontario is pretty garbage my man lmao.

  5. ISO #355

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Intentionally or unintentionally, Helz makes an excellent argument for why we should tear down the Union statues as well. This isn't about whether these people were "evil" because of their racism. This is about the fact that figures you dedicate larger than life statues to can and should reflect the ideals of the CURRENT society, rather than the ideals of some society 100s of years ago. I don't know why "should we put up statues of racist people that were contemporary heroes?" needs to be conflated with "are they bad because they were racist in a society where everyone was racist?". You can be a moral relativist and still oppose the existence of these statues.

    But I think it's important to remember that we are always encouraged to spend endless amounts of time talking about the symbolism like the flags and the statues rather than the concrete things we can do to combat modern social issues like ending the drug war or ending for profit policing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  6. ISO #356

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    Intentionally or unintentionally, Helz makes an excellent argument for why we should tear down the Union statues as well. This isn't about whether these people were "evil" because of their racism. This is about the fact that figures you dedicate larger than life statues to can and should reflect the ideals of the CURRENT society, rather than the ideals of some society 100s of years ago. I don't know why "should we put up statues of racist people that were contemporary heroes?" needs to be conflated with "are they bad because they were racist in a society where everyone was racist?". You can be a moral relativist and still oppose the existence of these statues.

    But I think it's important to remember that we are always encouraged to spend endless amounts of time talking about the symbolism like the flags and the statues rather than the concrete things we can do to combat modern social issues like ending the drug war or ending for profit policing.
    No complaints from me. Tear them all down. Who fucking cares about statues anyway?
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho

  7. ISO #357

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    I kinda feel that this is a loaded question. Of course you can't separate them in context to what your asking. Take a step back from the context and you absolutely can. What I said earlier was to point out that there were slaves of many races. Slavery as a function is not a race issue. We just view it as such because our most pronounced recent historical incident with it predominantly was. The human rights side was totally racial post-slavery but that is a separate issue.
    Why would you step back from context? Separating yourself from the context just makes your point of view disconnected from reality. I could entertain the thought of separating racism from slavery generally speaking, but when discussing slavery in the USA in regards to the civil war, the southern states explicitly said that due to the divine virtue of being white the black man is inferior and should be in permanent indentured servitude. The very core of their slavery belief is built on racism. It would be a completely different story if slaves were not predominantly black and if the southern states didn't outright say blacks are inferior, but they didn't and to separate the racist aspect from their slavery is disingenuous.

  8. ISO #358

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    I don't understand your point at all. I said the Confederacy was founded on racism and slavery as a founding principle, so to its core, it is irredeemably bad. Every traitor that fought for the Confederacy was fighting to maintain racism and slavery. The Union did bad things, yes, but the Confederacy was founded upon the idea of slavery as a cornerstone. I literally don't care what the Union did because I'm not defending them, I'm attacking the Confederacy.

    Your point about the Union, though it is absolutely correct, is muddying the waters because it's entirely irrelevant to any point I was making. You are trying to both-sides an argument that wasn't even pinning one side against another. You are spinning whataboutism about the Union into a pseudo-defence of the morality of the Confederacy, which is not only a fallacy but quite a disingenuous way of framing what I was saying in the first place.
    I think thats somewhat fair although I did not have the intention of misrepresenting your position. The confederacy as an agrarian society was built on slave labor and they were fighting to preserve their way of life. I very intentionally push to separate the ideas of human rights morality with this subject because I think its the disingenuous framework for any discussion on the civil war. You view this as a pseudo-defense while I feel like its a push to dispel the pretty moral justification that we place on the civil war. At the end of the day the North decided to use violence to maintain control over the south because it was necessary to preserve their power at the cost of over a half million American citizens; and people act like its ok because- 'slavery bad.' (America used the same framework of revisionism in WW2; look into the terror bombing campaigns.)

    I suppose we are making two separate points. We are somehow able to agree with etchother while simultaneously continuing a debate. I do still feel that understanding the context and motivations of both sides is necessary to correctly view the morality of the individual or the states; but it may be better for me to lay that to rest given the direction this is going.
    Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
    If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.

  9. ISO #359

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    Why would you step back from context? Separating yourself from the context just makes your point of view disconnected from reality. I could entertain the thought of separating racism from slavery generally speaking, but when discussing slavery in the USA in regards to the civil war, the southern states explicitly said that due to the divine virtue of being white the black man is inferior and should be in permanent indentured servitude. The very core of their slavery belief is built on racism. It would be a completely different story if slaves were not predominantly black and if the southern states didn't outright say blacks are inferior, but they didn't and to separate the racist aspect from their slavery is disingenuous.
    Its pretty simple. I made a statement about slavery as a concept. You can absolutely do both. I can maintain the function of slavery as a historical function between nations in wars while also acknowledging the racially charged aspect of slavery in the pre-industrialized southern american states. It has a place in this conversation because simply put- not all slaves were black. There were debtors, Native Americans, Mexicans, and all sorts of other races who had their freedom taken from them. Racism's connection to slavery in this context was that the moral justification for the inhumane treatment of people who's freedom was not taken from them as a consequence to their action because 'the black man was less than human and therefore- less deserving of human rights.'

    But this does not in any way make slavery synonymous with racism and I believe separating the two concepts is important to having an intelligent conversation on the subject. As simply as I can say it this is why you need to step back from the context, separate the two concepts, and then step back in to the situation before talking about entangled morality of the subject.
    Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
    If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.

  10. ISO #360

  11. ISO #361

  12. ISO #362

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Nope still disagree. You can't say slavery in the south is not synonymous with racism when official statements from the south in regards to the secession is heavily racially motivated. Feel free to read over the thread more thoroughly to find those statements.

    It may be edgy and hip to separate morality from discussions, but when it IS the morality of the offending party we are discussing, separating morality from discussing their morality seems a bit retarded no?

  13. ISO #363

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    Intentionally or unintentionally, Helz makes an excellent argument for why we should tear down the Union statues as well. This isn't about whether these people were "evil" because of their racism. This is about the fact that figures you dedicate larger than life statues to can and should reflect the ideals of the CURRENT society, rather than the ideals of some society 100s of years ago. I don't know why "should we put up statues of racist people that were contemporary heroes?" needs to be conflated with "are they bad because they were racist in a society where everyone was racist?". You can be a moral relativist and still oppose the existence of these statues.

    But I think it's important to remember that we are always encouraged to spend endless amounts of time talking about the symbolism like the flags and the statues rather than the concrete things we can do to combat modern social issues like ending the drug war or ending for profit policing.
    I have never even considered this. Is the objective of a landmark to preserve the opinion held at its time of creation or is it more important to preserve current ideology? Is preserving ideology only ok when it corresponds with current ideology? Im not sure which way is best but maybe its some combination that gives value to old monuments in that they were important enough at the time of their creation to be erected while also moral enough to survive the years of changing views.

    I think someone said it earlier but its probably worth noting neither qualifys for the preservation of most southern civil war statues as that the greater number of them were erected long after the civil war as a push against rights movements.
    Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
    If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.

  14. ISO #364

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    But also too awake to sleep. Too tired to play something. Too broken of a phone screen to do anything longer than 5 minutes on it without switching the screen off for at least a minute to avoid the epileptic flashes

    Whats a now 30 year old with an asshole of a brother that projects his issues onto everyone else, threatening to ruin their lives through their therapist to do
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho

  15. ISO #365

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    I can't engage with someone so condescending
    I am sorry that you feel that way.
    Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
    If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.

  16. ISO #366

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    But also too awake to sleep. Too tired to play something. Too broken of a phone screen to do anything longer than 5 minutes on it without switching the screen off for at least a minute to avoid the epileptic flashes

    Whats a now 30 year old with an asshole of a brother that projects his issues onto everyone else, threatening to ruin their lives through their therapist to do
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho

  17. ISO #367

  18. ISO #368

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    Nope still disagree. You can't say slavery in the south is not synonymous with racism when official statements from the south in regards to the secession is heavily racially motivated. Feel free to read over the thread more thoroughly to find those statements.

    It may be edgy and hip to separate morality from discussions, but when it IS the morality of the offending party we are discussing, separating morality from discussing their morality seems a bit retarded no?
    Didn't you hear? This thread and the opinions within are worhless
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho

  19. ISO #369

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    “Back then it was okay so they’re fine morally”

    Back “sometime” you could rape anybody you pleased
    Murder if you were stronger
    Blah blah blah. Hell Hitler thought he was a good guy! What kind of stupid argument is that?
    Have you ever heard the tragedy of Darth Jar Jar the wise?

  20. ISO #370

  21. ISO #371

  22. ISO #372

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by aamirus View Post
    “Back then it was okay so they’re fine morally”

    Back “sometime” you could rape anybody you pleased
    Murder if you were stronger
    Blah blah blah. Hell Hitler thought he was a good guy! What kind of stupid argument is that?
    Its easy to do the right thing when its popular
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho

  23. ISO #373

  24. ISO #374

  25. ISO #375

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    Nope still disagree. You can't say slavery in the south is not synonymous with racism when official statements from the south in regards to the secession is heavily racially motivated. Feel free to read over the thread more thoroughly to find those statements.
    I understand your point but I am not sure why you refuse to separate the concepts. Yes Racism was a huge issue and was a morally reprehensible position taken by southern states. I have read the thread and I 100% understand that. I believe that the intention behind the action defines the morality of the action and its a very different discussion to look at the situation as economic or racially motivated. This difference has very direct bearing on the morality.
    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    It may be edgy and hip to separate morality from discussions, but when it IS the morality of the offending party we are discussing, separating morality from discussing their morality seems a bit retarded no?
    This made no sense to me. I am not advocating for separating morality from the discussion. I am pushing to separate the concepts of slavery and racism so a discussion can exist on morality. Without doing so I do not see how much reasoning can be put into the conversation on morality. Maybe we should agree to disagree? I am totally open to changing my view there if you can open my mind to a different way of looking at the issue but I am not sure we are heading in that direction.
    Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
    If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.

  26. ISO #376

  27. ISO #377

  28. ISO #378

  29. ISO #379

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    I understand your point but I am not sure why you refuse to separate the concepts. Yes Racism was a huge issue and was a morally reprehensible position taken by southern states. I have read the thread and I 100% understand that. I believe that the intention behind the action defines the morality of the action and its a very different discussion to look at the situation as economic or racially motivated. This difference has very direct bearing on the morality.

    This made no sense to me. I am not advocating for separating morality from the discussion. I am pushing to separate the concepts of slavery and racism so a discussion can exist on morality. Without doing so I do not see how much reasoning can be put into the conversation on morality. Maybe we should agree to disagree? I am totally open to changing my view there if you can open my mind to a different way of looking at the issue but I am not sure we are heading in that direction.
    I mean yeah I can swallow this. The north wanted economic control and access to cheap labor/base products and the south wanted to keep slavery. The north and the south were racist but the south much more so. The north killed a lot of people for material reasons, the south lost and had to submit under the economic control of the then federal government.

    Wars kill people and through this civil war the north kept in mind its economic interests, whilst the conclusion is that now a lot of black slaves became freedmen.

  30. ISO #380

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by secondpassing View Post
    I mean yeah I can swallow this. The north wanted economic control and access to cheap labor/base products and the south wanted to keep slavery. The north and the south were racist but the south much more so. The north killed a lot of people for material reasons, the south lost and had to submit under the economic control of the then federal government.

    Wars kill people and through this civil war the north kept in mind its economic interests, whilst the conclusion is that now a lot of black slaves became freedmen.
    Very elegantly put.
    Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
    If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.

  31. ISO #381

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    But this does not in any way make slavery synonymous with racism and I believe separating the two concepts is important to having an intelligent conversation on the subject. As simply as I can say it this is why you need to step back from the context, separate the two concepts, and then step back in to the situation before talking about entangled morality of the subject.
    This came across as do not consider morality when thinking about the topic.

    Let me ask you this, do you think racism is a moral issue?

  32. ISO #382

  33. ISO #383

  34. ISO #384

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by aamirus View Post
    “Back then it was okay so they’re fine morally”

    Back “sometime” you could rape anybody you pleased
    Murder if you were stronger
    Blah blah blah. Hell Hitler thought he was a good guy! What kind of stupid argument is that?
    I think I missed where someone made that argument but it is a tenable position.

    For an extreme in the philosophical model of determinism you can not assign moral blame to any actions by virtue of free will being an illusion. This is the core of the argument that there can not be an all powerful, and all knowing creator if free will exists.
    Kant had a great line of thought in this direction he dubbed 'tutelage.' If you scale back from the extreme of determinism its worth considering the impact of conditioning and lack of access to modes of thought that would enable a different thought process/action. Can you assign moral blame to an individual who was given the choice of door#1 or door#2 when the moral action would have been to pick door#3? The individual never had the free will or autonomy to do what you consider right so you are pushing consequences on them for a pre-existing circumstance they did not create.

    I believe morality (good or bad) can not exist without choice. There has to be autonomy and that can not exist without information. Theres many different ethical structures that can carry this to the extremes you described. I am in no way going to say they are 'right' but the reasoning they present fascinates me.

    A nihilist arguing through utilitarianism in a tribal society struggling to survive could argue that the murder of the individual for the betterment of a group as moral; and it would even be immoral for the individual of that group to not murder the person he was stronger than.

    These kinds of arguments are only stupid on the surface but get pretty deep if you ever want to dive down that endless rabbit hole.
    Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
    If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.

  35. ISO #385

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    This came across as do not consider morality when thinking about the topic.

    Let me ask you this, do you think racism is a moral issue?
    Absolutely. The idea of removing someones freedom is acceptable to a degree to me when its a consequence to a persons actions but the idea of removing someones freedom because of who they are is a really evil thing. I even take that to more of an extreme with issues today such as efforts to control mass perspective which removes autonomy.

    Racism is probably one of the most ignorant positions someone can take and the overwhelming majority of racists I have met actually discriminate based on culture rather than race. They will say "This black guy is ok because he acts white" or "That while guy is not ok because he acts black." The idea that a human being as any less deserving of ethical treatment because of their race is just evil in my opinion.
    Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
    If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.

  36. ISO #386

  37. ISO #387

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    Agreed. What about slavery? Your post already hints towards yes, but I just want to lay the foundation.
    I can't really give a yes or no to that. In the context of racism absolutely yes its a moral issue but I do take the controversial position that slavery has its moral place. One such example would be how societys would make foreign invaders into slaves for a period of time. It feels acceptable to me in that if a group of people invades another country to murder them, destroy their infrastructure, and take their wealth it makes sense to have those people rebuild the damage they caused after the fact. This is in line with the idea of a loss of freedom resulting as a consequence to the individuals actions.
    If you avoid thinking in absolutes slavery in one form or another exists everywhere. People sacrifice portions of their freedom for various benefits and freedom is removed from people as a consequence to committing crimes. You could argue that mandated 'chain gangs' or hard labor rehabilitation used in military prisons are in pretty much every respect slavery. The individual can not choose what they get to eat or if they want to work. Scale that extreme and it becomes a question of 'how much freedom' is forcefully taken or 'what kind of tasks' are mandated. With that view you could say that slavery absolutely exists today in America and that it is to some degree morally appropriate.
    Some parents even pay for their children to be subjected to such conditions through boarding schools that remove the childs freedom and require hard labor to develop discipline and work ethic against their will. You can also essentially designate a military draft as a form of slavery forcing individuals into hard labor and hazardous conditions without their consent.
    I have herd arguments that it is more moral than basic imprisonment under the reasoning if someone has their freedom taken for harming society it is immoral to require that society to then pay for that persons welfare. That obligating contributions in return works to offset the cost. (I don't think I agree with this in practice as American for-profit prisons are a sick and terrible thing but the base reasoning does make some sense to me)

    Regardless I do not think anyone in their right mind could argue that the 'Uncle Toms Cabin' portrayal of 1800s American slavery was in any way moral.

    I am curious where you are going with this : )

    Do you believe that a moral application of slavery can exist or is appropriate in context to rehabilitation or mandated social service?
    Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
    If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.

  38. ISO #388

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    A moral application of "slavery" can definitely exist. A persons transgressions against a society can be repaid in part with forced labor however the ethics of how it is implemented and who specifically it applies to is where the true debate takes place on that matter. I think this is straying off-topic though.

    To point it back I'll bounce this - what transgressions did the slaves during and before the civil war era commit to justify their shackles? We can both agree that an actual transgression has to occur for mandated service to come into effect however from the mouth of southern states themselves, the slaves (majority of them) transgression against society was simply their race, for existing to put it more tragically. This is where I cannot accept separating racism from slavery on the topic of the civil war. The very core foundation of the slavery was racism.

  39. ISO #389

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    And we could argue a hypothetical point - what if they weren't black, or what if it was an equal representation of races enslaved. But I would again refer back to what I said earlier. We would be then disconnecting ourselves from the reality of the situation thus making the discussion irrelevant, even though it might be interesting.

  40. ISO #390

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    To point it back I'll bounce this - what transgressions did the slaves during and before the civil war era commit to justify their shackles? We can both agree that an actual transgression has to occur for mandated service to come into effect however from the mouth of southern states themselves, the slaves (majority of them) transgression against society was simply their race, for existing to put it more tragically. This is where I cannot accept separating racism from slavery on the topic of the civil war. The very core foundation of the slavery was racism.
    It varied although the obvious answer is the greater majority of slaves came from the African slave trade. The majority of those slaves were sold by Africa. From my limited understanding in the beginning Africa was selling the people in their prisons but as things went on private groups basically started capturing large amounts of people in their villages and would then sell then to the slave trade companies.
    The majority of Native American slaves were also sold by Native Americans. They practiced slavery before and while Europeans came to America against tribes they had wars with. A significant amount of Native American slaves were basically captured by Americans. Some with justification such as wars or crimes and others just captured for profit. (I will note that it was not an insignificant number of slaves. Some 50,000 were exported to the west indies and Native Americans were strongly sought after because they knew the land and were experts at cultivating crops.) There was also a significant pipeline of slaves from Mexico / the American Southwest That was consistently pumping Native American slaves into the southern colonies. If your interested in that sort of thing New Mexico in particular has quite a bit of study's on the subject projecting that a third of the states population was Native American slaves at one point in their lives.
    The third largest pool was the Hispanic slaves. Some were captured soldiers from the Texas revolutionary war and others were appropriated criminals. Judges began selling criminals into slavery instead of hanging them in some areas.
    There were also white slaves. Some were indentured servants that volunteered for a period of time in return for something while others were prisoners serving a sentence or debtors working off a debt.

    Regardless of that first generations origin the second generation slaves were born into captivity and were totally innocent. That and I do believe that the greater majority of people brought into slavery did not come as debtors or prisoners and those that were very likely received too harsh of a punishment for whatever they did.

    I really think that the core foundation of American slavery was economic. The racism was created out of necessity to justify that evil. The south didnt succeed saying "We just want to make black people suffer;" Their motivation was "The loss of slavery would destroy our way of life and its justified because blacks are less than human and undeserving of freedom." To suggest the former is true you would essentially have to argue the entire confederacy was built upon sadism and dedicated to it to the extreme of going against self interest.
    That is to say- I believe that Racism was just the means to an end as opposed to the end itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    And we could argue a hypothetical point - what if they weren't black, or what if it was an equal representation of races enslaved. But I would again refer back to what I said earlier. We would be then disconnecting ourselves from the reality of the situation thus making the discussion irrelevant, even though it might be interesting.
    I would point out that its not a hypothetical at all. There were massive amounts of other races but its just not talked about, but thats something interesting to read up on if you choose to scratch that itch. I agree its not worth diving into more than I already have because it does not really have any real bearing on the morality of succession. Even if we came to the absurd conclusion that races were equally represented in slavery it does not change anything other than the 'racist' title tagged onto the discussion.

    The only reason I drew it out a good bit is I have a distaste for how history likes to cater to some injustices while it neglects others. Dig into Christopher Columbus' journal and you will find some horrific atrocities that make Uncle Toms Cabin sound like Disney World. He is credited with the genocide of up to a million Native Americans and committed such evil acts that upon his third return to Spain the Queen of Spain threw him in prison when she herd about it. This is not to say what African Americans endured in America was in any way ok but this is a big part of why I dislike that place black racism as synonymous with slavery. Yes they suffered but they were not the only ones who did, and saying so in no way detracts from the injustices they experienced.

    But back on subject, slaves were predominantly African American and regardless of how the first generation of slaves were brought to market the second generation and all that followed did nothing to deserve their treatment making their enslavement an objective evil in my opinion.
    Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
    If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.

  41. ISO #391

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Sometimes I reread what I wrote and figure theres something wrong with me. Immediately after agreeing something was not worth discussing I just couldn't help myself and had to ramble on about it some more. That Pedantic nature to be excessively concerned with minor details causes more problems for me in these situations than it resolves..
    Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
    If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.

  42. ISO #392

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    People still out here trying to deflect from the Cornerstone Speech lmao

    "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

    "The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."

    "Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error."

    "Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws."

  43. ISO #393

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Yes I agree slavery itself it economic, but this isn't the run of the mill slavery we are discussing. You can't read the the literature posted here and say "but it wasn't just about racism". You simply cannot lol. It's incredibly disingenuous and honestly a huge insult to do so. Leaders of the Confederates clearly made the stance of 'Blacks are inferior and should be enslaved' and anyone that supports the Confederacy, regardless of their opinion on the slavery/racism, is by proxy endorsing these racist beliefs. Racism is so embedded in the foundation of the Confederacy you cannot compartmentalize it and put it outside the scope of discussion or the identity of the Confederacy.

    This is also what actual systematic racism looks like.

  44. ISO #394

  45. ISO #395
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    I think thats somewhat fair although I did not have the intention of misrepresenting your position. The confederacy as an agrarian society was built on slave labor and they were fighting to preserve their way of life. I very intentionally push to separate the ideas of human rights morality with this subject because I think its the disingenuous framework for any discussion on the civil war. You view this as a pseudo-defense while I feel like its a push to dispel the pretty moral justification that we place on the civil war. At the end of the day the North decided to use violence to maintain control over the south because it was necessary to preserve their power at the cost of over a half million American citizens; and people act like its ok because- 'slavery bad.' (America used the same framework of revisionism in WW2; look into the terror bombing campaigns.)

    I suppose we are making two separate points. We are somehow able to agree with etchother while simultaneously continuing a debate. I do still feel that understanding the context and motivations of both sides is necessary to correctly view the morality of the individual or the states; but it may be better for me to lay that to rest given the direction this is going.
    Mate I actually have been saying many of the same things you have, and yet you’ve said a lot of the discussion isn’t worth your time. Are you referring to the discussion PRIOR to that, or what? I just don’t understand where you’re coming from.

  46. ISO #396

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    Yes I agree slavery itself it economic, but this isn't the run of the mill slavery we are discussing. You can't read the the literature posted here and say "but it wasn't just about racism". You simply cannot lol. It's incredibly disingenuous and honestly a huge insult to do so. Leaders of the Confederates clearly made the stance of 'Blacks are inferior and should be enslaved' and anyone that supports the Confederacy, regardless of their opinion on the slavery/racism, is by proxy endorsing these racist beliefs. Racism is so embedded in the foundation of the Confederacy you cannot compartmentalize it and put it outside the scope of discussion or the identity of the Confederacy.

    This is also what actual systematic racism looks like.
    Im really not sure how else to say that I believe Racism was just the means to an end as opposed to the end itself. It was an absolute necessity for the south. If African Americans were accepted as equal then the south had to acknowledge what they were doing was evil. The fact their economy was built on slave labor made this unacceptable. I do not believe the motive for the war was a push for the intention of sadistically oppressing African Americans and I do not see how any reasonable person could take that position when considering the motivations of the people during that time.

    Would you agree with me that they would have taken the exact same position if the greater majority of their slaves were Native American and those statements would read "The Native American is sub-human and their natural position in society is as a slave?"

    If so then you understand exactly what my point is. The racism was the justification for slavery but not the objective and in context to the power struggle between the north and south while keeping in mind the north did not free slaves or declare equality until after the war its a reasonable conclusion that slavery was the economic tool leveraged for power with the moral pretense of human rights.

    I feel like this is a very reasonable conclusion that is directly based on the information available but people just keep jumping back to 'racism because racist' without reasoning to motives. Would it be acceptable to establish the common ground that as racism was the justification to validate slavery and was at the heart of succession? If so both of our positions are valid and there is no contention.
    Last edited by Helz; June 27th, 2020 at 05:07 AM.
    Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
    If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.

  47. ISO #397

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    Mate I actually have been saying many of the same things you have, and yet you’ve said a lot of the discussion isn’t worth your time. Are you referring to the discussion PRIOR to that, or what? I just don’t understand where you’re coming from.
    I was just responding to Oops there.

    I didnt mean to say a lot of the discussion wasn't worth my time. I was just trying to establish common ground. I think a lot of people have voiced essentially the same view but we get hung up on details and semantics.
    Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
    If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.

  48. ISO #398
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Anyways I kind of have the same feeling about my posts after I read them. I just don’t think it’s fair to paint the Confederacy and especially the South in general as completely morally wrong. Sure what they did wrt slavery wasn’t okay, but a lot of these people died in defense of their homes and their culture. Many southerners felt a stronger loyalty to their state rather than the Union (unlike the north). It’s not like everyone in the South was a Nazi who wanted blacks enslaved lmao.

    Slavery is bad, which, no shit it is, nobody’s arguing it wasn’t lmao. That’s literally not controversial. No decent person agrees with slavery.

    The confederacy is a symbol. It’s VERY unfair to compare it to the nazis for a variety of reasons, the first is that while the South was a racist society indeed, you can’t just discount their entire culture on the basis of this sole fact.

    Honestly this is just actually a part of a larger whole. This is essentially part of an attack on the moral foundations of Western civilization. The West didn’t create slavery, the West abolished it lol....
    Last edited by ; June 27th, 2020 at 05:34 AM.

  49. ISO #399
    Ganelon
    Guest

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Also, where’s all the Confederate death camps for killing blacks?

  50. ISO #400

    Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    Im really not sure how else to say that I believe Racism was just the means to an end as opposed to the end itself. It was an absolute necessity for the south. If African Americans were accepted as equal then the south had to acknowledge what they were doing was evil. The fact their economy was built on slave labor made this unacceptable. I do not believe the motive for the war was a push for the intention of sadistically oppressing African Americans and I do not see how any reasonable person could take that position when considering the motivations of the people during that time.

    Would you agree with me that they would have taken the exact same position if the greater majority of their slaves were Native American and those statements would read "The Native American is sub-human and their natural position in society is as a slave?"

    If so then you understand exactly what my point is. The racism was the justification for slavery but not the objective and in context to the power struggle between the north and south while keeping in mind the north did not free slaves or declare equality until after the war its a reasonable conclusion that slavery was the economic tool leveraged for power with the moral pretense of human rights.

    I feel like this is a very reasonable conclusion that is directly based on the information available but people just keep jumping back to 'racism because racist' without reasoning to motives. Would it be acceptable to establish the common ground that as racism was the justification to validate slavery and was at the heart of succession? If so both of our positions are valid and there is no contention.
    I'd ask you to read about free blacks in the antebellum period and ask yourself - is it really only a justification for slavery? I can agree that racism entwined with slavery was at the heart of the secession (sorry lol).

    I just do not agree with the post that Ganelon made earlier that it "wasn't just about slavery". I find it in very bad taste to frame the topic as he did.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    The civil war wasn’t only about slavery.
    Id argue the civil war was a result of the economic differences between the North and the South. The Soutn was mostly agricultural, while the North was more industrialized.

    I’d argue that even the Jim Crow laws passed in the South after the war were motivated primarily by resentment and were the South’s way of ‘getting back’ at the freedmen. Kinda comparable to how Hitler and the nazis became hugely popular due to German revanchism and the Great Depression.

    i just don’t think an entire people would be so anal about slavery when it was widely seen as immoral if it hadn’t been for the economic aspect. Remember that only 25% of Southern (white) families owned slaves. It wasn’t even a majority of the population. It was mostly the elites who were against, along with bigoted whites.

    Hence why I don’t think it’s fair to paint the Confederacy as a primarily racist society. The confederate flag is viewed as a symbol of pride for southerners in much the same way national flags are around the world. Yes, it has been used by white nationalists as well, but they aren’t the only ones who used it, and I’d argue that most people who don’t want the confederate flag removed aren’t nazis.

    If you look at the KKK, they have around 5,000 members today. In the ‘20’s they had a whooping 6 MILLION. Btw incidentally 20% of the white male (enfranchised?) population of Indiana were members of the KKK. Wtf happened to Indiana, they weren’t even in the South lol.
    This literally screams Lost Cause rhetoric

 

 

Members who have read this thread: 1

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •