Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Lawsuit: The only interesting thing about it is the obvious "I never settle" references.
Confederate flag: The difference between red and orange isn't really meaningful when we consider the meaning imbued in the symbol.
Trump's personal racism... I don't think he is a ku klux klan grand wizard. It's just his stated policies are cheered by a grand wizard. At worst he is just one of those that blithely goes around not noticing it. Though considering his policy of not renting apartments to african americans...maybe he is a bit more racist than I give him credit for? And he is surrounding himself with folks who hold some pretty awful views. Sessions didn't get confirmed as a judge because of his racist behavior toward US Attorneys. But now we think he can be the Attorney General? That he can help enforce civil rights laaws? Nah bro. Nah.
What will happen is that his administration will just ignore civil rights issues and allow racist poilicies to stand. When questioned they'll just say " we had a black president! There's no more racism."
ender502
"Burning the aquila into the retinas of heretics is the new black." - Savnock
"The ignore button is for pansees who can't deal with their own problems. " - H.B.M.C.
d-usa wrote: When racist idiots stop using the confederate flags as the symbol for their idiot racist behaviors, then people will probably stop associating it with idiot racists.
Eh. As I've said, I have another flag I associate with that type of person
d-usa wrote: Of course that's after we ignore the whole history behind the confederate states to begin with. But we shouldn't let revisionist history get another thread locked.
I have my name in as many Civil War books in print as I have gotten my name the credits of GW products. Hint, it's a number greater than 0.
The war started over Federal Power and States Rights. Slavery was just one of several issues that fell under those broader banners. People forget that the vast majority of southerners did not own slaves, nor did Lincoln have a huge mandate in the north to bring about Emancipation.
I don't want to quote The Dark Knight Returns, but Jim Gorden gives a little speech in it that's pretty dead on. With Pearl Harbor, everyone tends to forget that the American public was panicked by suddenly being thrust into the war, and remained so for week or two. After the war, they acted like they grabbed up a gun as soon as the Arizona went down and went after the Japanese and Germans.
After the Civil War, union soldiers were all in favor of Emancipation. Forget what they said before the war.. Never mind that it was a piece of brilliant statesmanship and PR on Lincoln's part to effectively change what the war was about half way through in order to keep out France and England, who were threatening to intervene.
However, an in depth analysis of the causes of the American Civil War is a bit beyond OT for this thread, so....
d-usa wrote: When racist idiots stop using the confederate flags as the symbol for their idiot racist behaviors, then people will probably stop associating it with idiot racists.
Eh. As I've said, I have another flag I associate with that type of person
d-usa wrote: Of course that's after we ignore the whole history behind the confederate states to begin with. But we shouldn't let revisionist history get another thread locked.
I have my name in as many Civil War books in print as I have gotten my name the credits of GW products. Hint, it's a number greater than 0.
The war started over Federal Power and States Rights. Slavery was just one of several issues that fell under those broader banners. People forget that the vast majority of southerners did not own slaves, nor did Lincoln have a huge mandate in the north to bring about Emancipation.
I don't want to quote The Dark Knight Returns, but Jim Gorden gives a little speech in it that's pretty dead on. With Pearl Harbor, everyone tends to forget that the American public was panicked by suddenly being thrust into the war, and remained so for week or two. After the war, they acted like they grabbed up a gun as soon as the Arizona went down and went after the Japanese and Germans.
After the Civil War, union soldiers were all in favor of Emancipation. Forget what they said before the war.. Never mind that it was a piece of brilliant statesmanship and PR on Lincoln's part to effectively change what the war was about half way through in order to keep out France and England, who were threatening to intervene.
However, an in depth analysis of the causes of the American Civil War is a bit beyond OT for this thread, so....
For those unfamiliar with Jeff Sessions situation in the new trump administration.
I have over 100 Civil War letters from family who fought for the North, and in not one of them is mentioned any desire mentioned to free slaves, but instead, to keep the Union together.
For the confederacy, it was about slavery. The founders of the Confederacy and the states within it stated that repeatedly. The main issue for the US was to preserve the Union, but that doesn't change why the confederate states left. They (wrongfully) feared the loss of slavery.
I personally assume racist (or at the very least, donkey-cave) when I see the "stars and bars". This is a combination of knowing what the flag symbolizes and personal experience.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Yes, let's just settle this civil war issue with a quote from the vice president of the confederacy. After all, he should know better than some random forum member what the political goals of his new nation were, right? In his own words:
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone 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. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. -Alexander Stephens, the "cornerstone speech"
Pretending that the civil war was not about slavery is revisionist history, plain and simple. There is no truth in it whatsoever. The only question that remains on this subject is whether the people claiming that secession was not about slavery are good people who have a shaky understanding of history, or apologists maliciously distorting the truth to defend a morally appalling rebellion.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/20 07:24:59
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Peregrine wrote: Yes, let's just settle this civil war issue with a quote from the vice president of the confederacy. After all, he should know better than some random forum member what the political goals of his new nation were, right? In his own words:
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone 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. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. -Alexander Stephens, the "cornerstone speech"
Pretending that the civil war was not about slavery is revisionist history, plain and simple. There is no truth in it whatsoever. The only question that remains on this subject is whether the people claiming that secession was not about slavery are good people who have a shaky understanding of history, or apologists maliciously distorting the truth to defend a morally appalling rebellion.
Just because he's said that is what he was doing and why he was doing it doesn't mean anything. You have to read what he said seriously, but not literally.
Peregrine wrote: Yes, let's just settle this civil war issue with a quote from the vice president of the confederacy. After all, he should know better than some random forum member what the political goals of his new nation were, right? In his own words:
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone 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. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. -Alexander Stephens, the "cornerstone speech"
Pretending that the civil war was not about slavery is revisionist history, plain and simple. There is no truth in it whatsoever. The only question that remains on this subject is whether the people claiming that secession was not about slavery are good people who have a shaky understanding of history, or apologists maliciously distorting the truth to defend a morally appalling rebellion.
Just because he's said that is what he was doing and why he was doing it doesn't mean anything. You have to read what he said seriously, but not literally.
What? Excuse me for being an ignorant Brit, but what are you suggesting people do? Listen to what someone says, then apply your own meaning to the words?
If someone states, as the example given here, an emphatic point, you are to apply what mental filter to get at the true meaning?
It seemed pretty definitive to me, Alexander Stephens, in this quote states that "the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition." and that the Confederate government is built on the idea. There's not much wriggle room for nuance in that statement.
Context is important, but I'm struggling to think of a context that could alter the meaning of those words.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Peregrine wrote: Yes, let's just settle this civil war issue with a quote from the vice president of the confederacy. After all, he should know better than some random forum member what the political goals of his new nation were, right? In his own words:
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone 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. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. -Alexander Stephens, the "cornerstone speech"
Pretending that the civil war was not about slavery is revisionist history, plain and simple. There is no truth in it whatsoever. The only question that remains on this subject is whether the people claiming that secession was not about slavery are good people who have a shaky understanding of history, or apologists maliciously distorting the truth to defend a morally appalling rebellion.
Just because he's said that is what he was doing and why he was doing it doesn't mean anything. You have to read what he said seriously, but not literally.
What? Excuse me for being an ignorant Brit, but what are you suggesting people do? Listen to what someone says, then apply your own meaning to the words? If someone states, as the example given here, an emphatic point, you are to apply what mental filter to get at the true meaning?
It seemed pretty definitive to me, Alexander Stephens, in this quote states that "the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition." and that the Confederate government is built on the idea. There's not much wriggle room for nuance in that statement. Context is important, but I'm struggling to think of a context that could alter the meaning of those words.
He was making a poor attempt at a joke but without the context of having read this whole trainwreck of a thread it makes no sense. Previously we were talking about people not caring whether Trump literally builds a wall but rather taking a harder stance on illegal immigration more seriously.
I don't pretend to know a whole heap about the Civil War, but as an outsider it certainly seems as it was about slavery, it seems you could make the argument that it was about the economic effects of slavery rather than morally caring about black people, but either way it still seems like it was about slavery.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/20 12:43:12
Peregrine wrote: Yes, let's just settle this civil war issue with a quote from the vice president of the confederacy. After all, he should know better than some random forum member what the political goals of his new nation were, right? In his own words:
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone 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. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. -Alexander Stephens, the "cornerstone speech"
Pretending that the civil war was not about slavery is revisionist history, plain and simple. There is no truth in it whatsoever. The only question that remains on this subject is whether the people claiming that secession was not about slavery are good people who have a shaky understanding of history, or apologists maliciously distorting the truth to defend a morally appalling rebellion.
Just because he's said that is what he was doing and why he was doing it doesn't mean anything. You have to read what he said seriously, but not literally.
What? Excuse me for being an ignorant Brit, but what are you suggesting people do? Listen to what someone says, then apply your own meaning to the words?
If someone states, as the example given here, an emphatic point, you are to apply what mental filter to get at the true meaning?
It seemed pretty definitive to me, Alexander Stephens, in this quote states that "the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition." and that the Confederate government is built on the idea. There's not much wriggle room for nuance in that statement.
Context is important, but I'm struggling to think of a context that could alter the meaning of those words.
You're not an "ignorant Brit" and neither am I last time I checked, but that poster's attempt at mental gymnastics just did a face plant.
White supremacists beaten by angry mob after they provoked it by walking up to do interviews about why the white people protesting fascism and Trump had so much 'self hate'.
It's not ok to commit violent crimes like assault and battery just because some people are going to espouse ideas you don't like in a media interview, you're victim blaming.
He didn't say they brought it on themselves.
Like many, he's waiting for people to stop pretending that the fear of racism and discrimination in Trump's wake is just people overreacting. It's real, and it be nice for people to stop pretending it isn't. But of course, that would mean admitting that all the people protesting, and even rioting, kind of have a point and aren't just raving lunatics.
He didn't? Then how do people who give media interviews provoke people into beating them? The appropriate counter to speech you object to is with speech not with violence. Regardless of the politics you espouse political speech never makes it acceptable for people to attack you.
Peregrine wrote: Yes, let's just settle this civil war issue with a quote from the vice president of the confederacy. After all, he should know better than some random forum member what the political goals of his new nation were, right? In his own words:
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone 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. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. -Alexander Stephens, the "cornerstone speech"
Pretending that the civil war was not about slavery is revisionist history, plain and simple. There is no truth in it whatsoever. The only question that remains on this subject is whether the people claiming that secession was not about slavery are good people who have a shaky understanding of history, or apologists maliciously distorting the truth to defend a morally appalling rebellion.
Just because he's said that is what he was doing and why he was doing it doesn't mean anything. You have to read what he said seriously, but not literally.
There are really only so many ways to take that comment (which by the way is not from the Corner Stone Address which was given in March, but rather is from Alexander Stephen's inauguration Address in February before Lincoln even took office, but right after he was himself made VP of the Confederacy);
-He doesn't mean it but it plays to his base, meaning Stephens doesn't care about slavery/white supremacy but people who support secession do
-He completely means it, and at least for him secession is completely about slavery/white supremacy, and given the writing of the Confederate Constitution as well as the words of other prominent secessionist he isn't alone
People don't say things at random. They say them because they mean something to them or to whom they are speaking. It's absurdist to think that the Vice President of the Confederacy was just preaching to thin air. No matter how you cut it, his words make it clear that slavery, and its continuation, were central to the Confederate cause and the reasons for secession (and he's not the only one who thought so. Literally ever declaration of secession mentioned North hostility to slavery as the main reason for leaving the Union with the exception of Florida, who just quietly left without a word). Seriously; feel free to check it out.
Spoiler:
"But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them." ~ South Carolina
Who specifically cited the rejection of the Fugitive Slave Act by northern states as their first specific grievance (state's rights indeed...), the election of Abraham Lincoln as their second, and the ability of free blacks to vote in Northern states as their third. They end their declaration with;
On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
The only way to interpret that statement is as "the North has elected an anti-slavery President and party, and we will now leave." Though they do take a very sly shot at the Quakers towards the end (when referencing "erroneous religious belief")
South Carolina mostly focuses on issues of Federalism, States Rights (though not the rights of the states you might think of surprisingly), and the perceived threat of Lincoln and the Republicans to slavery.
Georgia focuses a bit more on economic differences (and a surprisingly shrewd contemporary examination of Antebellum politics I might add) in their declaration but still;
Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it on the line of the Missouri restriction or an equal participation in the whole of it.
One of the ironies here being that pro-slavery northerner Stephen Douglas pushed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which repealed the Missouri compromise line and enraged people in both the North and the South for different reasons. Much like South Carolina though Georgia quickly turns to the election of the Republicans and their intent as the reason they are finally leaving, the lack of support for the Fugitive Slave Act in the North as unconstitutional (yey states rights!), and basically calling the North thieves for electing the Republicans and not returning slaves to their owners;
Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides.
I actually give props to Mississippi because they didn't bother with any of the bs like South Carolina and Georgia. They just come out and say it;
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
Not that surprising actually. Mississippi was second only to South Carolina in terms of the importance of slavery to the state.
Texas actually did the totally Texas thing and went their own route, citing the unique nature by which Texas became a state, her right to leave the United States as she chooses because she willfully joined the United States when originally a separate nation, and oh look there's slavery;
The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.
Notably Texas is actually the only state to directly mention the incident of Harper's Ferry (which was a pretty big deal);
They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offenses, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.
And then to top it off Texas has the unique distinction of being the only seceding state to go right into overt racism when making its announcement;
We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
Virginia (along with Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee) did not secede until after the incident at Fort Sumter and Lincoln's call for troops, which made it evident there would be war. Faced with the choice, these states chose to secede, while slave holding Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri ultimately remained in the Union thanks to political tom foolery. That they waited isn't surprising. There's really three sections in the US during this time; North, South, and Center. The southern half of the center states weren't particularly invested in slavery, had fewer slaveholders per capita, and felt less threatened by the Republican party and Lincoln's election. The seceded first and foremost because the war became inevitable.
And yet Virginia still cites slavery and the threat to it as their reason for leaving the Union;
and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States
Notably though Virginia skips the long complaining and has a very short declaration of secession.
The Civil War was about slavery. That's an extremely vague way of putting it. There's lots of caveats involved; property rights, Federalism, state nationalism, sectionalism, trade, industrial development, socio-cultural expectations of life et cetera (you will find many of these in the speeches and declarations of secession made between Lincoln's election and the start of the war). At the end of the day though slavery stands at the center. It is the issue that permeated conflict between North and South and no matter how you look at it you find your way back to slavery. People just need to get over it. Seriously. It's been 150 years. How long do we have to keep up the pretense before we can have honest public conversations about how the Republic was torn apart and hundreds of thousands of Americans started killing each other especially when trying to figure out why Southerners supported secession (which directly benefited only some of them) has produced so many good books on the subject?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/20 13:21:17
LordofHats wrote: (which by the way is not from the Corner Stone Address which was given in March, but rather is from Alexander Stephen's inauguration Address in February before Lincoln even took office, but right after he was himself made VP of the Confederacy);
The quote in question is from his Cornerstone Address, given on March 21, 1861 in Savannah, Georgia. I've never read or seen anything that says that it wasn't.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
LordofHats wrote: (which by the way is not from the Corner Stone Address which was given in March, but rather is from Alexander Stephen's inauguration Address in February before Lincoln even took office, but right after he was himself made VP of the Confederacy);
The quote in question is from his Cornerstone Address, given on March 21, 1861 in Savannah, Georgia. I've never read or seen anything that says that it wasn't.
Really? Hm. Maybe he said it in both speeches then, because I know he said it in his address to the Confederate Congress on February 22 after taking the official oath of office.
The "I say racist things but I am not racist" defense only works when your crowd looks just like you.
Let me give you a hint...the guy in the room saying racist things. That guy IS a racist. How do we know? Because of what he keeps saying.
The guy who doesn't say racist things but supports racist policies. Him? He's racist too.
The problem with many of Trump's picks is he is surrounding himself with folks who push racist policies or admit their racism through their own words. Does that make Trump racist? Maybe. Maybe not. But it does make you seriously question either his intended policies (does he want racist policies?) or whether or not he knows anything about the polivcies of these people? If it's the former than he is a racist and ought not to be president (come one electoral college!) and if it's the latter then he has proven himself so unfit for the role of president he ought not hld the office (come one electoral college).
Civil War: Please stop being an apologist and revisionist. I know people get a kick out of pushing against the mainstream. It gives folks a mental boner. I get it. But in this case it is a) not true and b) dangerous.
ender502
"Burning the aquila into the retinas of heretics is the new black." - Savnock
"The ignore button is for pansees who can't deal with their own problems. " - H.B.M.C.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
I dont believe anything from those democratic party propaganda rags.
Thank you for eloquently proving the point on how the right only believes what they are already inclined to believe and decries anything they don't like as "liberal propaganda."
ender502
"Burning the aquila into the retinas of heretics is the new black." - Savnock
"The ignore button is for pansees who can't deal with their own problems. " - H.B.M.C.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: bs back to you good sir. You can hate Islam without hating 1 billion people. Just the same way you can hate Christianity without hating all the Christians just like you can hate atheism without hating all the atheists.
You somehow feel confident passing a sweeping judgement on all of Islam. Whether this is because you are unaware of of diversity of belief, from Wahhabism to Suffi islam, or the range of cultures holding to some form of Islam, from the Gulf states to South East Asia, or because you just don't care... I guess it doesn't matter much. Either way the act of trying to pass judgement on the whole of something so complex is bigotry.
There's a difference between hating the religion/ideology and hating all the people who believe in that religion/ideology.
This is effectively the same thing as the social conservatives claiming they can love gay people while hating their relationships. Its a crock.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/20 15:49:02
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
"You can hate Islam without hating 1 billion people. Just the same way you can hate Christianity without hating all the Christians just like you can hate atheism without hating all the atheists."
"There's a difference between hating the religion/ideology and hating all the people who believe in that religion/ideology."
How are these two statements different?
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
NuggzTheNinja wrote: There is absolutely nothing bigoted about forming an opinion on an ideology based on experience - labeling it as racism in an attempt to dismiss those opinions is simply absurd.
It depends how complete that experience is. When a person's opinion is about the specific variety of Islam they experienced or even just studied, it isn't necessarily bigoted. But when that person takes their experience with one small part of the whole, and uses it to form a belief about the whole one billion adherents, across 50 majority muslim countries, well it's pretty obvious they are just making negative stereotypes. This is another way of saying 'bigotry'.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Just because he's said that is what he was doing and why he was doing it doesn't mean anything. You have to read what he said seriously, but not literally.
Just to help out those who actually took your post seriously, this was a joke.
After the election, one analysis of Trump stated that the difference between the media and the people in regards to Trump's statements was (roughly): "the press took him literally but not seriously, the people took him seriously but not literally."
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
NuggzTheNinja wrote: If a vast majority of Christians embraced "Christian law," and if Christian law required hating gays and enslaving people who are not white
This is not just factually untrue. its fething ludicrous. You don't care, of course.
But just everyone else, just remember this next time you see NuggzTheNinja post on anything. Just stop and think, hey this Nuggz guy is the dude who thinks a majority of Muslims want to enslave everyone, and here is trying to have his opinion on anything taken seriously.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote: Either way the act of trying to pass judgement on the whole of something so complex is bigotry.
It depends entirely on what your basis for that judgement is and how considered your reasoning for that judgement is.
You can believe all religions are fairy tales and some specifically are used as an excuse for violence (even if by a minority), if you use that as the basis for your argument for hating all religions it doesn't make you bigoted.
You can still even be tolerant of people who follow those religions and still hate the religion.
This is effectively the same thing as the social conservatives claiming they can love gay people while hating their relationships. Its a crock.
You're conflating arguments. Please stop.
You don't have to "love" anyone to avoid being bigoted, you simply have to be tolerant OR have well considered reasons for being intolerant.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/20 15:12:54
If the NY Times and the WaPo..actually start attempting to report the news instead of being in the business of manipulating public opinion, i would be happy to take a fresh view of them. But right now, they are really the poster children of yellow journalism. And its hard take anyone seriously that uses them to advance an argument, as though they were unbiased.
Edit..For some reason my quote attempt failed.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/11/20 15:13:44
Before anybody accuses me of right-wing bias, I'll declare beforehand that I don't give two hoots for Trump or Clinton,
but it's very surprising to see the New York Times pretend to be journalists again...
It's a pity that they couldn't have had some serious analysis of both candidates in the run up to the election, instead of turning a blind eye to the Clinton bid...
I look at the above article and my reaction is meh x 1000
Journalism in the Western world may as well not exist. The Panama papers, as some predicted*, sunk without a trace as soon as the MSM got involved, and I suspect this was deliberate.
Our EU referendum was reduced to a daily deluge of WW3 will happen if you vote to leave, and that was mostly from the newspapers again...
No serious analysis was ever conducted...
Post truth is a phrase that is thrown around quite often these days, but I suspect it's sour grapes from an industry that know that most people don't believe them even if they're telling the truth, because they've cried wolf too many times...
* I'm on a mobile device, and normally I'd try and provide links, but this mobile device is fiddly, so if you want any sources, you're outta luck
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
shasolenzabi wrote: Knowing how uphill it is in this nation for 3rd parties, we don't get angry for our choice not becoming President, we just are chipping away at the monolith of the "2-party-system-metod" which is too easy to corrupt by the Plutacrhs and corporate types.
My State was never gonna vote for Hillary as it went overwhelming Trump, she angered the coal folks here, and they got the poor stiffs who go dig the mines and then get laid off 3-months later to support that by going strongly Trump.
Pennsylvania 2016 election results...
Trump 48.7%
Clinton 47.7%
Overwhelming!
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
shasolenzabi wrote: Knowing how uphill it is in this nation for 3rd parties, we don't get angry for our choice not becoming President, we just are chipping away at the monolith of the "2-party-system-metod" which is too easy to corrupt by the Plutacrhs and corporate types.
My State was never gonna vote for Hillary as it went overwhelming Trump, she angered the coal folks here, and they got the poor stiffs who go dig the mines and then get laid off 3-months later to support that by going strongly Trump.
Pennsylvania 2016 election results...
Trump 48.7%
Clinton 47.7%
Overwhelming!
you're looking at the numbers though, you have to look at the pretty picture and all the red on the map. Look at the large land area that's red.
Relapse wrote: This election had the worst choice of candidates ever, bringing out the worst in both sides.
People keep saying stuff like this, but just read this forum. The 'insidious evil of the left' was just used in an actual, meant to be serious post. This is the world we live in now, people believe totally fething bonkers gibberish about the other side.
I'll tell you right now, 2020 will be a long, slow slog from here*, but when we get there, the left will hate whoever the right puts up, and the right will hate whoever the left puts up. It will be nasty, and much of it will be very stupid. And like this time people will blame it on the presidential candidates alone, and pay no attention to the structural issues driving it.
*Albeit occasionally hilarious, because truly Trump is the gift that keeps on giving.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
~4100
~1660
