How in the world can you say that? Like, are you a historian of the antebellum South? You know for a fact that rape and beating were atypical treatment of slaves?
Where I jumped in was emperus's narrative which was to say that the typical situation slaves encountered were beatings and horrible conditions. That is untrue. The typical slave would not be beaten or raped. That in no way means slavery was not horrible and that is what Glenn also said. I was not defending Bill as I think his position is immoral. What I did was to say that Glenn was right on the point that you dont need to exaggerate slavery because the details are bad enough.
But, if you want to see me as defending Bill, or diminishing slavery go ahead. You are wrong and I doubt you care. This is political season and you have a job to do.
Simple answer. This is purely a matter of opinion and I think that you're being hypersensitive. But, by all means, imply I'm racist for having a different opinion. I see you.
You keep saying the same thing. My refusal to condemn slavery the way YOU think I should isn't evidence of anything much less that I'm a racist or that I minimize slavery. It's just a sign that you evidently feel some OCD need to hear some ritual words being said or avoid some topics. "How dare you talk about slaves that weren't beaten!"
You and your comments in this thread and the Democratic thread is the reason why Trump should never win the election. He has given cover for Racists like yourself to come out into the open.
1: Believe right wing context for her statement.
2: Feel the need to "defend" the white house.
It's a beat your chest patriot thing.
You still didn't answer the question. Tell me why Bill decided to throw out that "fact" as you describe it.
He was spouting various facts that he came across in his research and that just happened to be one of them. That's my opinion. You OK with that or do you want to continue questioning my insensitivity to your perception of overt racism?You still didn't answer the question. Tell me why Bill decided to throw out that "fact" as you describe it.
He was spouting various facts that he came across in his research and that just happened to be one of them. That's my opinion. You OK with that or do you want to continue questioning my apparent insensitivity to racism?
I don't think the right believes there is abuse of blacks. Its not like they think there is, but its okay because of other progress. The problem with that debate is the same thing here. Those on the left exaggerates events which makes those on the right dismiss the events. The way the event of Michael Brown's death was presented is what allows the right to dismiss the issues. Its the same thing I have been telling those on the left to stop doing to Trump. The more they exaggerate something that is already bad, the less credibility the left has.
Had people focused on Bills point and what he said, it would be quick and easy to show his motive. Instead we get bogged down in other shit because everyone wants to virtue signal about their positions.
How in the world can you say that? Like, are you a historian of the antebellum South? You know for a fact that rape and beating were atypical treatment of slaves?
I'm not. That sneaky bastard is smarter than he looks! lolI am surprised he didn't tell us how "happy" the slaves were doing the work.
The potential motivations of the speaker make no difference to the truth value of a statement. You're engaging in a logical fallacy called Bulverism. It's the same thing as when Republicans mocked Senator Patty Murray for talking about why Osama bin Laden found support in Afghanistan and she cited building infrastructure like roads, schools, and daycare centers (well maybe that last one is a bit of stretch). The truth of that statement is completely independent of whether Osama was a horrible person or not.
Just to clarify: You do see that the left and the right react to each other equally like in a circle? One does not create the other, both create each other, and this is what I call, "we create what we fear'.
Imagine that you are born perfect but contaminated in childhood by the notion of evil, that you yourself have the potential to be evil, that you grow up in a cage of normalcy, of virtue in a conformity of one kind or another. Is this what you mean by "virtue signaling"?
This is what I describe as the source of bigotry, the certain belief there is a GOOD, an actual fact, the state of consciousness possible for an deprogrammed being in full ownership of his or her real self, as opposed to the person who is a true believer in formulaic ideation and ideology, identification with the inculcated program. This is the state of duality, the certainty that pattern of behavior is good or bad, and that the ego of such a person is identified with that good. The manifestation of such a person as a virtuous person of the right path, the ego need to express that fact to the world, the need to save it from sin, all of this, is that what I hear when you use the term virtue signaling. Does that make any sense to you?
If so than perhaps you can appreciate that the cause of the animosity for the left of the right and visa versa are nothing more than the projection of self hate and how it creates what we fear.
Anyway, I liked your post.
He was spouting various facts that he came across in his research and that just happened to be one of them. That's my opinion. You OK with that or do you want to continue questioning my insensitivity to your perception of overt racism?
What is your point? The argument wasn't to the truth of the statement (though that is still debatable, though I'm not debating it with you). The argument was to why O'Reilly decided to make that statement. Again, I'm sure O'reilly just doesn't throw out what he believes are facts for no reason, because there are trillions of facts out there. He chose that statement for a reason. The question is what was his reason?
But based on your comment in the other thread, you seem to have a deeply set racist sentiment so, I wouldn't expect you to acknowledge what I said.
But based on your comment in the other thread, you seem to have a deeply set racist sentiment so, I wouldn't expect you to acknowledge what I said.
What is your point? The argument wasn't to the truth of the statement (though that is still debatable, though I'm not debating it with you). The argument was to why O'Reilly decided to make that statement. Again, I'm sure O'reilly just doesn't throw out what he believes are facts for no reason, because there are trillions of facts out there. He chose that statement for a reason. The question is what was his reason?
But based on your comment in the other thread, you seem to have a deeply set racist sentiment so, I wouldn't expect you to acknowledge what I said.
Because I had an amazing history teacher in college who got me much deeper into US history.
https://www.palmbeachstate.edu/pf/Faculty.aspx?id=COTTONL
Realize, I am not saying slavery was not brutal. Rape and beatings were legal punishments. That is horrific and shows how fucked up it was, and that is only a small part of it. You should not in any way think that I am trying to lessen the history of US and slavery.
That said, there were big incentives to not ruin their property. No doubt you had people who literally bought black people to just torture and murder people and it be legal.
Then we were not born perfectly. A perfect person could look at their beliefs and actions and realize what they are doing.
My position makes me a lefty to those on the right, and a rightie to those on the left. I can look at the institution of race based slavery and see that its bad, and then see how its misrepresented and exaggerated. I agree with Glenn that often people exaggerate things to virtue signal. I disagree that Bill was just trying to point out a fact.
Well, in my opinion you are wrong about not being born perfectly. .
See, you start on the right path. Focus on the facts and the obvious logic behind Bill's comment.
Then you go and take the low road to build a straw man so you can dismiss him if he does not say something you can disagree with logically. You give off the false signal that you want to talk, but then you attack. Even if you are right about him, you are poisoning the situation.
If you want to say that you dont care, then we get to the question of why you would post at all about this.
Oooh, an unspecified comment in another thread. That's good stuff.
And as for why he decided to include that statement, I have no idea. I'm guessing it was the same kind of instinctive defensiveness that someone acknowledging a wrong are wont to do. Maybe it was a truthful but still ill-advised statement akin to Romney's "47%" comment. Or perhaps it was simply someone 'thinking out loud' trying but failing badly to explain the motivations behind why someone else acts a way that you find puzzling and counter-intuitive like Obama's "cling to guns and religion" conjecture. All I can say is that I don't find what he said to be something that minimizes slavery in any way, although he probably should have included the mandatory denunciation of it that seems to be required nowadays.
glenn1 said:Not really, when you obey the law and don't attempt to escalate the encounter with the cop or fight back/actively resist that's the way things normally go. Plus people with jobs like those in the photo tend to have better behavior and manners than the core Democrat "47%" base and you have the other part of the equation.
You're trying to rationalize why people shouldn't have beaten and raped their slaves, not demonstrating that they didn't. Given that slaves were frequently sold and traded, what do you think a slaves odds of living a full life without ever having been beaten or raped was?
Good move! I'll take that as a backhanded compliment. Otherwise, we'll just have to agree to disagree.No, I'm not ok with that. Because if I was than I would have to assume you are incapable of reasoned thought which I haven't seen demonstrated in this forum. So, yes I am questioning your insensitivity to his overt racism and the reasons behind it.
Here you go