Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Make an argument for once instead of resorting to attacks on character. If you disagree with a point I make, explain why the reasoning is incorrect.
Yes, I'm worried that the ideas are misunderstood, because people's ideas are what shape the society we live in. The Voltaire quote has been used forever to illustrate freedom of speech, so I'm not sure why people still don't grasp it. You're not defending their opinions to the death. You're defending their right to express those opinions to the death.
"For folks who allegedly value themselves on non-aggression, you sure seem to like speaking about aggression & what you'd be willing to agress over." <--- I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. Obviously we want to discuss when aggression is justified or not. That's the entire point. It's only justified when it's defensive, and forcing someone to serve you isn't defensive.
We've been down this road before & I'm tired of 'making an argument' with sophistries. How am I "resorting to attacks on character?" All I've ever wanted to do is call out the bs & the sophistical arguments.
The Free Market Musketeers/Fundamentalists/Profiteers use the same o lame o libertarian justifications, to bolster the already skewed off the charts arguments for an even greater stranglehold the wealthiest of corporations & individuals already have on the majority of American people & on the democratic process itself. They've already achieved great success in the domination of American life & one would think this would satisfy their quest for ever-greater profits? Apparently not. Even with the ruling on Citizens United.
Folks like W.E.B Du Bois saw the writing on the wall more than 50 years ago:
"On October 20, 1956, W. E. B. Du Bois delivered this eloquent indictment of US politics and why he won’t vote in the upcoming Presidential election. Du Bois condemns both Democrats and Republicans for their indifferent positions on the influence of corporate wealth, racial inequality, arms proliferation and unaffordable health care. The article appeared in The Nation.
Why I Won’t Vote
by W.E.B. Dubois
This article was republished in Hartford Web Publishing.:
Quote:
“No ‘two evils’ exist. There is but one evil party with two names.”
...This Administration is dominated and directed by wealth and for the accumulation of wealth. It runs smoothly like a well-organized industry and should do so because industry runs it for the benefit of industry. Corporate wealth profits as never before in history. We turn over the national resources to private profit and have few funds left for education, health or housing.
...We let men take wealth which is not theirs; if the seizure is “legal” we call it high profits and the profiteers help decide what is legal. If the theft is “illegal” the thief can fight it out in court, with excellent chances to win if he receives the accolade of the right newspapers. Gambling in home, church and on the stock market is increasing and all prices are rising. It costs three times his salary to elect a Senator and many millions to elect a President. This money comes from the very corporations which today are the government. This in a real democracy would be enough to turn the party responsible out of power. Yet this we cannot do.
...This is the democracy in the United States which we peddle abroad. ...
We've been down this road before & I'm tired of 'making an argument' with sophistries. How am I "resorting to attacks on character?" All I've ever wanted to do is call out the bs & the sophistical arguments.
The Free Market Musketeers/Fundamentalists/Profiteers use the same o lame o libertarian justifications, to bolster the already skewed off the charts arguments for an even greater stranglehold the wealthiest of corporations & individuals already have on the majority of American people & on the democratic process itself. They've already achieved great success in the domination of American life & one would think this would satisfy their quest for ever-greater profits? Apparently not. Even with the ruling on Citizens United.
Folks like W.E.B Du Bois saw the writing on the wall more than 50 years ago:
"On October 20, 1956, W. E. B. Du Bois delivered this eloquent indictment of US politics and why he won’t vote in the upcoming Presidential election. Du Bois condemns both Democrats and Republicans for their indifferent positions on the influence of corporate wealth, racial inequality, arms proliferation and unaffordable health care. The article appeared in The Nation.
Why I Won’t Vote
by W.E.B. Dubois
This article was republished in Hartford Web Publishing.:
You've got a thing against white folks. 'Nuff said.
The article did not mention any case in which those things happened. It just asserted they happened, without saying when, where, or to whom. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.
I can name one black man who -- according to the records -- was lynched for no good reason, just racial prejudice. And I can give you the when and the where. But you can't name him (or anyone else), because you're just parroting stupid propaganda, and you have no idea of what actually happened. Most lynchings were for murder and rape.
Yeah, I'm white and you can't read.
From the article:
Quote:
“Many of these lynchings were not executing people for crimes but executing people for violating the racial hierarchy,” he said, meaning offenses such as bumping up against a white woman or wearing an Army uniform.
It wasn't up to rogue whites to take justice into their own hands and murder people without being legally convicted, but you will never acknowledge this because hatred towards a group of people clouds the thinking.
I could give you names, they're not hard to find online, but you'll still come up with some lame azz response that it's all a lie.
We get it, you've got major issues with black folks and become triggered when anyone defends them.
I agree with you. I also think it would result in the destruction of those businesses and physical violence against business owners. Black and white enraged people who are stupid, would do that, you and I both know that. This could lead to more racism on both sides, with more signs going up, more destruction, more racism.
Things are bad enough, we don't need that mess.
We already do have enough problems. You're not lying about that. Some things are just below the surface. Just in the past 3 years I'm seeing some things come to the surface. The last thing we need is to open a Pandora's box. Keeping the peace is hard enough. After seeing the events that culminated in Baltimore, Milwaukee, Dallas, and Charlotte, we have problems. After the massacre in Charleston, the histrionics in Charlottesville, more trouble would just result.
Some people just don't get it. Or, some people do get it and do not care, but won't come out and say it.
It wasn't up to rogue whites to take justice into their own hands and murder people without being legally convicted, but you will never acknowledge this because hatred towards a group of people clouds the thinking.
I could give you names, they're not hard to find online, but you'll still come up with some lame azz response that it's all a lie.
We get it, you've got major issues with black folks and become triggered when anyone defends them.
George Santayana had an important quote: Those who fail to remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
We have a situation where some people refuse to remember the past. I've watched enough history films, been in enough classes in school to understand what Jim Crow and lynching was about. We all know lynching was extrajudicial violence. We all know that many lynchings took place because of the failure to toe the Jim Crow line. Many lynchings took place because of allegations. Someone will say "lynchings took place because people committed crimes". I've mentioned this before. It was allegations. No one was actually proven guilty or innocent.
I will mention something else. False allegations of rape are not anything new. This was not something that started with 3rd wave feminism. In the South, there were many cases of rape allegations were not proven to be true. Rape also had a broader definition: Any sexual contact between a White woman and a Black man, even if such contact was consented. What went on, I have no idea of knowing. There might have been cases where sex was consensual, but being caught with a Black man was considered heinous, and therefore, making a false rape claim could take place. I'm not saying this took place all the time. I'm saying there might have been cases where this took place.
George Santayana had an important quote: Those who fail to remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
We have a situation where some people refuse to remember the past. I've watched enough history films, been in enough classes in school to understand what Jim Crow and lynching was about. We all know lynching was extrajudicial violence. We all know that many lynchings took place because of the failure to toe the Jim Crow line. Many lynchings took place because of allegations. Someone will say "lynchings took place because people committed crimes". I've mentioned this before. It was allegations. No one was actually proven guilty or innocent.
I will mention something else. False allegations of rape are not anything new. This was not something that started with 3rd wave feminism. In the South, there were many cases of rape allegations were not proven to be true. Rape also had a broader definition: Any sexual contact between a White woman and a Black man, even if such contact was consented. What went on, I have no idea of knowing. There might have been cases where sex was consensual, but being caught with a Black man was considered heinous, and therefore, making a false rape claim could take place. I'm not saying this took place all the time. I'm saying there might have been cases where this took place.
Some people will lie just to save face. It is one thing to be thought of as a bigot. It is another for a person to admit to being one.
Good post. No doubt there were all kinds of fake charges that led to beatings and lynchings of blacks, mostly black men. In one account I read earlier, a black veteran was lynched for insulting a white woman because he didn't move over far enough when passing her on the sidewalk. And the history of this doesn't even go back that far.
The problem with the poster isn't that he doesn't remember - he's saying it's a lie. To be so devoted to such a twisted notion illustrates a sick mind, in my opinion.
Good post. No doubt there were all kinds of fake charges that led to beatings and lynchings of blacks, mostly black men. In one account I read earlier, a black veteran was lynched for insulting a white woman because he didn't move over far enough when passing her on the sidewalk. And the history of this doesn't even go back that far.
The problem with the poster isn't that he doesn't remember - he's saying it's a lie. To be so devoted to such a twisted notion illustrates a sick mind, in my opinion.
Thank you. False rape allegations and false charges have happened for a long time. In some cases, it was used to cover up shame. Now, there is no doubt that there were Black criminals back in those days. As long as there have been criminals, there have been Black criminals. However, lynching is basically vengeance. The victim was never proven to be guilty of anything.
I find it ironic that a veteran got lynched. The South has a high proportion of individuals who have served in the U.S. military. But given that time period, it does not surprise me. I did some research. The KKK started to grow again right after WWII. With Black soldiers coming home in uniform, there was a feeling of "we fought for freedom abroad on behalf of America, now it's time we have freedom in the country we're from, America". Let's just say the KKK had other ideas.
You hit the nail on the head. Said person hasn't forgotten. Said person is basically lying. I compare this to Holocaust denial. We all know why some people deny the Holocaust. It's done out of hatred. Same in this case. We can prove said poster wrong. We can show that the lynchings were basically extrajudicial killings that were carried out and were quite savage. They were done for a multitude of reasons. Alot of them were done for not toeing the Jim Crow line, for not "knowing one's place". Many were done due to accusations, not because the victim actually committed a crime. There was no justification for what took place.
It goes back to what I mention. It is one thing to be thought of as a racist. It is another thing for said person to admit to being a racist. Rather than said person admitting to having disdain for Blacks, said person just tells lies. Said person tries to do the "alternative facts" thing, of revisionist history. Some people would rather lie to save face.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
