Pin the Tale on the Donkey: Democrats' Horrible Racist Past | Bill Whittle

[the_std]

Just asking questions is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements.

That is just too accurate! Thanks for sharing that link.

[Hyena Dandy]

Yep. His main goal was to keep the Union together. If he could've done that peacefully and it meant keeping slavery, that's what he would've gone with.

Yes, and no.

Lincoln could have avoided a war altogether. What he would have had to do was make it clear in the lead-up to the war that he had abandoned his plans to free slaves all together. That would have been it.

Lincoln was a believer in the idea of the 'American Experiment,' (may not be the name that was used, head a bit foggy.) The idea is that America would be a society where all people would be free, and one man one vote, all men created equal, etc. To men like Lincoln, slavery was a mark against that. To men like Lincoln, secession would also be a mark against that. He wanted slavery to end, eventually. He was willing to negotiate on the timescale. His original plan, would have continued slavery likely into the early 19th century, being a plan where the government would issue bonds to buy slaves from slaveholders.

The quote you're referencing references that - That he considered keeping the union together a higher priority than freeing slaves, but it shouldn't be interpreted to mean "He didn't think it was importnat." Rather that, the 'American Experiment' failed, if the country broke apart, just as surely as it failed if slavery continued.

[Gravekeeper]

It's called JAQing off actually, and has it's own rational wiki entry.

<adds that term to his vocabulary>

I've been struggling to find a specific term for Glenn Beck style bullshit in debates.

[Talon]

It's called JAQing off actually...

Now that's just offensive.

Why would anyone conflate something that's fun, natural, and healthy (barring over-indulgence) with something stupid and ignorant like engaging in logical fallacies?

[ben_who]

Here's a fact for you:

One party tells a group of people, based solely on the pigmentation of their skin, that they can't get ahead and that they NEED government's help to do so.

Another doesn't.

One of those stances seems racist to me.

Visualize three rational actors. These three rational actors are Group of People 1, Group of People 2, and Government.

Group of People 1 is much larger than Group of People 2. In some areas of the country, Group of People 1 have a history of oppressing Group of People 2. The cultural result is that Group of People 1 has more freedom and access to greater opportunities, social, economic, and cultural than Group of People 2.

Government intervenes, and says, hey, Group of People 1, you have to stop oppressing Group of People 2, since they have just as much right to these opportunities as you do. Group of People 1, afraid that having to share these opportunities means losing them to Group of People 2, resists the Government. Eventually, however, Government prevails, and Group of People 1 must end their oppression of Group of People 2.

What's interesting here is the right-wing mindset of victimization. By your count, both sides are now victims of the Government - Group of People 1 for no longer having the "freedom" to oppress, and Group of People 2 for being suckered into a cycle of dependency. Giving Group of People 2 access to the same tools of justice that are available to Group of People 1 isn't victimizing them.

But claiming that they're being victimized is infantilizing them. "These people are being taken advantage of by liberals because they don't know any better" actually sounds pretty racist to me, as if Group of People 2 don't have the tools to implement rational decisions. You think Group of People 2 are easily led. They're not. They're rational actors.

It's a narrative that pretty much covers all bases. You make your own racism sound noble by claiming that you're only looking out for those poor ignorant victims of government intervention. Have you ever tried asking THEM who's doing the victimizing, rather than trying to either speak for them or implying that you know better than them? Have you ever tried to get in touch with their needs? Figured out what they want, asked them what the American Dream looks like to them, and what's standing in their way of it?

Or are we both just shouting over their heads, pretending that we know best? I don't know best. You don't know best. But I'd like to think that I'm on the side determined to open up the biggest range of opportunities for the highest number of people, some of whom, due to class, race, or standing, might not have had access to those opportunities in the past. That way, Group of People 2 can decide what's best for themselves. Want to take a look at what the other side is doing, and see if it adheres to the same goals? I doubt you'll enjoy it.

[Andara Bledin]

It's a narrative that pretty much covers all bases. You make your own racism sound noble by claiming that you're only looking out for those poor ignorant victims of government intervention.

It's also a narrative that almost perfectly mimics historical commentary about how slavery was a good thing for the slaves... >_>

[mjr]

It's possible for you to think something is in your best interest, and be WRONG. Because it does not have the effect that you expect.

I would also posit that the converse is true. It's possible that someone else may think something is in my best interest, and be wrong.

[mjr]

Seeing as how the GOP routinely opposes social programs and laws that would benefit poor, black, southern communities (you know, the things that would affect livelihood, health, education, jobs, infrastructure, and overall quality of life; ie, things that are generally considered to be in everyone's best interests)

Let's see...of the social programs that could benefit the aforementioned groups, how many actually HAVE actually helped them? In what way? Keep them dependent on the government, so Democrats stay in charge longer?

I suppose it depends on how you define "help". I mean, "throw money at the issue" isn't a valid plan.

Helping the groups you mentioned shouldn't start at the federal level. It should start at the local level, with local communities. So why don't you let it start with you? Start today. Help someone learn a new skill, or something.

The Federal Government isn't the "be all-end all" to solving the country's problems, regardless as to who's in charge.

You make it sound like if Democrats were in charge, everything would be egalitarian, and that there would be sunshine, rainbows, and lollipops, and that's FAR from the truth.

I can only presume at this point that you are either being deliberately obtuse for the sake of playing devil's advocate, or are so adamant in your willful ignorance of the issue you're trying to argue that nothing I say is going to make any difference anyway.

Hey, I'm just trying to get people to think.

[mjr]

Now that's just offensive.

Why would anyone conflate something that's fun, natural, and healthy (barring over-indulgence) with something stupid and ignorant like engaging in logical fallacies?

Seriously, if you guys think I'm the only one committing logical fallacies in this thread, I have a cheap bridge to sell you.

Just saying.

[Hyena Dandy]

Helping the groups you mentioned shouldn't start at the federal level. It should start at the local level, with local communities.

I have no idea where the idea that if one were to make the government not give money, everyone would suddenly step in to 'Fill the void.' If people were that generous, we never would have had to start giving money through the government in the first place.

I suppose it depends on how you define "help". I mean, "throw money at the issue" isn't a valid plan.

'Issue' is a funny word to use to refer to FUCKING PEOPLE

What helps is people not being in poverty, or starving, or sleeping on the streets. That's a pretty big fucking help. What do YOU think 'Help' means?

[mjr]

It's also a narrative that almost perfectly mimics historical commentary about how slavery was a good thing for the slaves... >_>

Too bad it's an incorrect narrative. And a not-so-veiled accusation of racism thrown in, in a "I know you are, but what am I?" sort of way.

While ben_who makes valid points about Group 1 and Group 2 as far as government involvement, you'll note the one of the videos in my original post was by a BLACK GUY (one of those non-existent Black Republicans).

Seriously. It's like a 12-step program. You have to be willing to admit there's an issue, and then take steps (sometimes within your own community) to fix it. No amount of Federal money or programs is going to help that.

[Hyena Dandy]

While ben_who makes valid points about Group 1 and Group 2 as far as government involvement, you'll note the one of the videos in my original post was by a BLACK GUY (one of those non-existent Black Republicans).

No, it's okay, guys, I have a black friend!

[the_std]

Seriously. It's like a 12-step program. You have to be willing to admit there's an issue, and then take steps (sometimes within your own community) to fix it. No amount of Federal money or programs is going to help that.

Are you saying that poor/black people don't deserve help from the government because they aren't trying hard enough to not be poor?

Seriously, does anyone LIKE being poor and oppressed and downtrodden? Do you think black people are happy being objectified and tossed aside? It has absolutely nothing to do with "not wanting to admit there's an issue", and everything to do with the fact that society has actively and passively kept huge groups of people from moving up in the world. There is no fucking twelve step program for that, and to suggest so is saying that this is their own fault. Which is a tired old GOP talking point (if they wanted to badly enough, they'd just stop being poor!) and it's purely, utterly HORSESHIT.

[Gravekeeper]

I'm legitimately afraid that this is what mjr actually believes and he is not just farking with us. >.>

[Kheldarson]

Let's see...of the social programs that could benefit the aforementioned groups, how many actually HAVE actually helped them? In what way? Keep them dependent on the government, so Democrats stay in charge longer?

Hi. I'm on Medicaid (well, technically just my son is) and we were on food stamps for a while. We would have been on the streets or at least declaring bankruptcy without the help.

Oh, and that was with my working full-time time and my husband working near full-time. Although the food stamps were when he was unemployed.

I suppose it depends on how you define "help". I mean, "throw money at the issue" isn't a valid plan.

When you're talking about paying for things, it typically is. No goods are going to pay my son's medical bills. Or the grocery bill, although they could replace it. But then you have to hire extra people to do the shopping or collecting, the sorting, and the delivery. It's cheaper to just give folks money and let them do their own shopping as they need food.

Helping the groups you mentioned shouldn't start at the federal level. It should start at the local level, with local communities. So why don't you let it start with you? Start today. Help someone learn a new skill, or something.

Sure, but it's been proven that local community help doesn't have the resources consistently enough to help everyone in their area because, unfortunately, people are cheap bastards or there just isn't the income distribution to help.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarecharity.htm

http://theweek.com/articles/448089/d...rnment-welfare

Hey, I'm just trying to get people to think.

If you were, you'd be throwing out an argument with logic rather than party rhetoric.