I think it was politically necessary at the beginning, even if evil by my standards. But it was still valid law when Dred Scott was decided.
~Max
Who the fuck cares? It was valid law in a racist immoral slaver nation. The Warsaw Uprising was against the laws of Nazi Germany, should we tut-tut them?
You have to ask?
Legally speaking, after the war if there isn’t an amnesty then yes they should be prosecuted. Which I think, unfortunately, happened.
~Max
There is so much wrong with your entire post. It’s not worth debating it point by point, just know it’s all hateful, and all wrong.
And yes, very racist.
@Max_S , I’m curious. You’re living in 1858 Vermont. You open the door to your barn. Inside is a black man, who says he escaped from a plantation in Virginia and is heading to Canada; he stopped in your barn to rest for the night. Do you…
- Help him get to Canada
- Hide him for the night, but that’s it
- Tell him to leave
- Turn him in
Either 3 or 4 depending on circumstances not specified.
~Max
To me, there is racism, and then there’s racism. I alluded to this in one of the ATMB threads. (I don’t remember which one, and I’m too lazy to look it up.)
To explain this, I’ll use as examples my mom, and her now-deceased boyfriend.
My mom isn’t actively racist, but she has some ideas that are unknowingly racist. Not in a mean way, just ignorant. For example, she was at our house and I think the Olympics were on TV. One of the swimmers was Black, I think only one in that group, and my mom made the mention that Black people have trouble swimming because of their body type.
My wife and I both choked a little, and said that’s not true and that’s racist. My mom was confused because she’d been taught that many years ago. I mentioned that there is a stereotype about Black people not generally being skilled swimmers because inner city kids (especially low income ones) have less access to safe places to swim, and don’t get lessons. I even showed her some articles about it, like this one:
To her credit, she didn’t double down, she accepted what we told her and said she was glad to learn that. I think she was legitimately interested to learn that what she’d been taught all that time ago was wrong. That’s generally how she is; growing up in the 50s/60s in rural Ohio, she was just taught a lot of ignorant garbage about race that she didn’t unlearn. But she has no animosity against anyone for their race. (I grew up in a very diverse neighborhood, and that meant my mom lived there, and she befriended people of many races as I was a kid.)
Contrast the guy my mom lived with. For the most part he was a pretty nice guy, but he was definitely a racist. He would gripe frequently about Mexicans in particular, but often grumped about any minority. He wasn’t a Neo Nazi or anything, but that was part of his personality. It always made me extremely uncomfortable, and my mom just barely tolerated it herself. He was someone who would make derogatory and offensive comments if the subject came up (so I tried to be careful with my speech around him).
I don’t think something ignorant that my mom would say should be moderated. Those wrongful racist comments made in ignorance should be corrected, that’s basically the core of what the Straight Dope and the SDMB is about. On the other hand, the kind of BS my mom’s old boyfriend would say should not be allowed, and someone with his attitude would almost surely be unwelcome here and if he were alive and posting here, he would likely (and should) be banned. It was core to who he was, and he would never change or be convinced that his opinions are wrong or bad.
But this is why I don’t think it is right to say “all racism is hate speech”. Because it’s not. Much of it is, but like many things it is subject to nuance, and a bright line rule would be a bad thing for the board.
Okay, Max. I’m only going to try this once.
You have decided, voluntarily, to adopt this “very narrow legal reading of the constitution.” Nobody forced it on you.
You have admitted, freely, that this narrow legal reading would cause harm to people.
Therefore, you have adopted a worldview which would hurt people who are already hurting. If you could shape the world to your liking, people would suffer on the altar of your beliefs.
This is hateful.
And this is evil. Your worldview is evil. Your point of view is evil. Pull back from the ledge, motherfucker.
…by the USSR. A bastion of justice?
Only because no one in 1858 would imagine that slavery was some objective evil, right?
I mean if it it was evil how could God have put it into the US constitution?
Only after Jesus came to change the Constitution did it become wrong to enslave, torture and work to death human beings based on their race, right?
Really? Why? I can imagine doing 3 if I was scared of the reprecussions (though I intentionally picked Vermont as a relatively safe place to take a stance against slavery), but I couldn’t imagine doing 4; and that wouldn’t be because of any respect for the laws of a white supremecist slave nation, but due to fear of consequences.
I’d like to imagine I’d go with 1, but I’m not particularly adventerous, so realistically it’s probably 2 for me.
Not just inner city kids. Lots of rural towns just happened to close their public swimming pools right about the time when they were forced to integrate public facilities. So that left swimming to local neighborhoods (very much split racially even now) or private pools (and low income people are locked out of that as well).
Almost like there’s something to CRT, innit?
That’s librul nonsense.
If this is really what you would do, this makes you a bad person. If you don’t want to be a bad person, you should reevaluate whatever values and conclusions lead you to this position.
I’ve become convinced that Max is a character from Catch-22.
He is a kid who doesn’t understand constitutional law or precedent. That is why I ceased discussing 14th amendment jurisprudence with him. He is literally someone who, from what I can tell, got into some right wing legal “analysts” black hole of bad takes and ran with it from there. He dismisses well established precedent, plain text of the constitution, ignores or outright lies about the actual way enumerated and unenumerated rights have been held dating back 150 years–and he essentially buys into a theory that despite the 14th Amendment being clearly worded and ratified specifically to empower the Federal government to do all the things he says it doesn’t, he essentially operates in an ideological space where he thinks the 14th Amendment doesn’t exist. All of his arguments then follow logically from there, but they are a house of cards build on shifting sand, arguing the 14th Amendment does not exist does not make it so, it is literal denial of reality and once I saw that was going on, I disengaged.
Someone whose philosophy is based on how he wants to believe the world is, instead of how it actually is, is just a religious person, and I don’t debate religious belief with people.
Yeah. If he’d just said 3, he could be a coward; but 4? That’s pure evil.
If I could, I would pass constitutional amendments that satisfy my narrow legal reading and my moral values.
~Max
The argument is almost Kantian, who, coincidentally (?) was an avowed racist for nearly his entire life.