My issue with Republicans on this issue is simply how much they tell us that we got racism/sexism/etc wrong. Yet they are by far the least diverse party. If you were right about racism, why wouldn’t you have more racial minorities? It’s not like Democrats actively are doing anything for African Americans. So why wouldn’t they be in equal numbers with Republicans?
Because, even without doing anything, we at least don’t try to invalidate racism.
Oh, and I apologize for calling Bricker evil. It’s Trump who is evil. I was just fucking pissed for other reasons off board. Bricker is just annoying and is really easily able to piss me off. People who seem like they should get it but don’t piss me off more than people who I don’t expect to ever get it.
I am BigT. I have a temper problem. It is generally the reason for all the posts I regret.
But . . . was I wrong to infer that you were arguing that the higher number amongst Republicans showed something negative about Republicans as opposed to Democrats?
(For what it’s worth, I think liberals are responsible for many problems, but conservatives are hardly lily-wh… er, blameless, to be sure).
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
To take just one example, 50 years ago liberals were all about integration.
[/quote]
And conservatives were all about opposing it.
For example, it was conservatives, including Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett (a Southern Democrat, like most other segregationist conservatives before they went Republican over the Civil Rights Act), who tried to block the legally permitted enrollment of the black student James Meredith at the University of Mississippi. It was thousands of conservatives who rioted at a pro-segregation rally against Meredith’s entering the campus and assaulted the federal marshals who were protecting him.
It was conservatives who filibustered the civil rights bill for months in the attempt to block its passage. It was conservatives who at thousands of polling places applied discriminatory tests to illegally keep black people from voting. It was conservatives who supported anti-miscegenation laws to make racial intermarriage illegal.
Conservatives 50 years ago were foaming at the mouth about all the “liberal agitation” in favor of integration, although they now try to pretend that they were never really against it. (Well, most of them, at least; as we have recently seen, there are still a bunch of conservative extremists who have no problem openly admitting that they’re still as racist and bigoted now as any conservatives of the bad old days.)
The “spit upon” bit is a thoroughly debunked urban legend. Actually, antiwar activists knew full well that disillusioned soldiers returning from Vietnam were the best spokesmen the antiwar movement could have, and indeed thousands of those soldiers joined the movement.
Nope, you’ve got yourself a “Bowling Green Massacre” event there, pal. (Why is it always Ohio? ) What you seem to be confusedly trying to allude to are the Kent State shootings, in which dozens of National Guard members armed with rifles and pistols fired at groups of unarmed student antiwar protesters.
So haphazardly and indiscriminately, by the way, that the fatalities included two students (one a ROTC leader) who had merely been walking across campus to get to class and had nothing to do with the protest. Real “threatening” behavior, that. :rolleyes:
In fact, none of the students wounded or killed were any closer than 70 feet to the Guardsmen, and most were hundreds of feet away. What a pity that those “tough-guy” conservative types scare so easy, isn’t it?
Well then, lemme 'splain it to you. The party of civil rights for way too many decades now been busily accusing whites of racism where none exist, have defended and in effect promoted every negative behavior coming out of the black community no matter how self-defeating it is or how much it alienates whites and reinforces their prejudices.
And more recently we have SJWs inventing offenses like ‘white privilege’ and ‘cultural appropriation’ to further create black resentment of whites and white resentment toward those making such accusation. And now we have the issue of Confederate soldiers being brought up, as usual not by blacks but by would-be SJWs agitating on their behalf, and used as yet another way to separate blacks and whites and foster mutual resentment and hostility. And then we’ve had the left doing everything they can to portray the 68 million people who voted for Trump as Nazis and racists. And of course we also have them out confronting real Nazis and white supremacists and making a big deal out of them when what ought to be happening is that they should be roundly and completely ignored. As it is, the effect is the same as with banned books: increased demand. Because the left just can’t let it go and instead have to go riding of to battle with these people, Nazi and white supremacist ideas get spread far beyond what would have been the case otherwise, which, combined with those drawn to support them out of nothing but anger and resentment for those who for decades have been insulting and denigrating them for behavior they’ve never exhibited, only serves to increase their ranks and the threat they pose.
The ‘party of civil rights’ also includes innumerable SJWs intent on searching out any possible thing they could become offended and enraged by, who have become so belligerent and intolerant in their beliefs and so fractured that they’re now attacking each other. Witness the furor over Steve Martin having called Carrie Fisher ‘beautiful’ (oh, noes!!!) and the treatment of the liberal professor at Evergreen College in Washington who had to flee with his family to another town under threats of death because he dared to criticize SJW plans for a blacks only day on campus. And now we have schools like Harvard conducting blacks only graduation days. :rolleyes:
Can you tell me how all this does anything but create strife, division, resentment and mutual combativeness? Does it foster integration? Does it do anything to lessen biases and the negative impressions any one group has about another? Do we want a fully integrated, equal and unbiased society, or do we want one where a thousand different groups all resent and hate and battle each other?
Thanks to the ‘party of civil’ rights, we’re well on the way to the second.
Conservative politicians and some of the deep south populace was, but most conservatives even then believed segregation and the exclusionary treatment of blacks to be wrong. But even to the degree conservatives were anti-integration then, they aren’t now. So what is it you’re trying to say? That because certain conservatives were anti-integration 50 years ago it’s fine to villainize them now?
Bullshit! I witnessed it myself and knew soldiers it happened to. You might find the following article enlightening. It’s written by one of the soldiers who’d seen it (and worse) and has gone on record stating that such spitting did indeed happen, while also exposing the author of your so-called debunkment as a socialist and anti-war protestor using incomplete or dishonest research to support his allegations. Given my age at the time, what I saw and heard my friends experience, plus the fact that these allegations far predate 1990 (as your alleged debunker foolishly suggests), I’m far more inclined to believe the author of the piece I linked to than the so-called ‘debunking’ penned by a socialistic anti-war activist with an agenda.
Yes, it was Kent State University. I inadvertently called it Ohio State because the song Four Dead In Ohio was running through my mind as I typed. The error is meaningless.
Those shootings followed several days of restlessness and anger and some violence on the part of the anti-war protestors, and the shootings took place after the crowd had begun menacingly advancing upon the soldiers as they tried to retreat, throwing rocks and tear gas canisters at them as they approached. As for the people shot while walking across campus, do you have any evidence whatsoever that their shooting was intentional rather than the result of their catching stray bullets, as is my impression? Sixty some rounds were fired and since only a handful of people were hit it’s obvious many missed their mark and went astray.
:dubious: What makes you think that black people aren’t bringing up Confederate iconography and protesting against its use on public sites? They are, and they always have been. Here, for example, is a news report on a protest from 1988:
Black Americans as a group have never been happy with the widespread white American glorification of the dead champions of the cause of slavery, and they’ve often said so very clearly, over the course of decades.
Where are you getting the idea that these objections to Confederate iconography are only coming from “would-be SJWs” instead of from black Americans themselves? Do you just not notice criticism when it’s “only” coming from black people? So when a longstanding tradition of protest and pushback among blacks suddenly starts to attract more attention from whites, you believe it’s somehow a brand-new thing?
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
And of course we also have them out confronting real Nazis and white supremacists
[/quote]
Well, we liberals tend to believe that openly standing up to the menaces and hate-filled rhetoric of Nazis and white supremacists and disavowing their murderous ideology is a good thing. Seems to me that many conservatives used to think so too. (Well, the Nazi part, at least. Once we’d actually gone to war with them, at least. I’m pretty sure there were at least a few decades in there when most American conservatives didn’t mind appearing openly opposed to Nazis.)
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
what ought to be happening is that they should be roundly and completely ignored.
[/quote]
You appear to have Nazis and white supremacists confused with rattlesnakes or grizzly bears or similar dangerous but non-malevolent forces of nature. It is not actually true of Nazis and white supremacists that “if you leave them alone, they’ll leave you alone”.
That is, of course, they’ll probably leave you personally alone, Starving Artist, since you’re a conservative white man committed to passively appeasing, sorry, “ignoring” them. But a lot of other Americans don’t have the luxury of being able to count on similar tolerance at the hands of Nazis and white supremacists.
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
And now we have schools like Harvard conducting blacks only graduation days.
[/quote]
No, we don’t; you’re in “Bowling Green Massacre” territory again. What black graduating seniors at Harvard did this year was to hold a “Black Commencement” celebration that did not conflict with or substitute for the University’s official commencement ceremonies in any way, and which all Harvard students regardless of race were welcome to attend.
You know, Starving Artist, your constant ragewanking about the evils of modern-day liberals might be a smidge more persuasive if your claims about them didn’t constantly have such an abysmally low facts-to-bullshit ratio.
Cite? Where are you getting your quantitative estimate of “most” conservatives holding antisegregationist views in the 1950s, and what’s your actual evidence supporting it?
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
But even to the degree conservatives were anti-integration then, they aren’t now. So what is it you’re trying to say?
[/quote]
That conservatives who claim that yesterday’s liberal causes were reasonable, but that the liberals of today have just gone too far and are wrecking society, are not very credible. Because that has been a standard conservative talking point for centuries.
The voting rights for blacks that you now accept as clearly moral and right were raged against as sheer liberal wickedness by your conservative counterpart of that day. The voting rights for (white) women that he accepted as clearly moral and right were raged against as sheer liberal wickedness by his conservative counterpart of an earlier day. The legal marriage equality for gays that your conservative counterpart of a few decades in the future will accept as clearly moral and right was raged against as sheer liberal wickedness by you and your contemporaries at least until comparatively recently. It’s a well-established pattern.
Conservatives are always complaining that this time, the liberals have just gone too far!! It’s literally been centuries since liberal ideas started to make some headway in modern societies, and conservatives have been saying it all along, like clockwork. If it ever had any credibility as a rational criticism, it certainly doesn’t anymore.
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
You might find the following article enlightening. It’s written by one of the soldiers who’d seen it (and worse) and has gone on record stating that such spitting did indeed happen
[/quote]
Again, you miss the point. Nobody is saying that no protester ever spat on anyone. The urban legend that’s questioned (and has not in fact ever been substantiated, by your linked article or by any other source) is that it was common for soldiers back from Vietnam to be spat upon by antiwar types for no other reason than that they were soldiers.
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
The [Ohio State/Kent State] error is meaningless.
[/quote]
The error in itself is not substantive, but it is woefully typical of your generally shaky relationship to facts.
Note that I said we have (as in currently) SJWs agitating about Confederate statues on blacks’ behalf. It’s become a national issue as a result and a hugely divisive one at that, sporadic and isolated complaints from decades ago such as you list notwithstanding.
And yes, it’s obvious that your type thinks it’s correct to confront, antagonize and attack Nazis, white supremacists, and Trump voters/rally attendees. That isn’t the issue. The issue is that your wrong and you’re making the problem worse. As to your claim that while they leave white conservatives alone while threatening everyone else, I’d suggest that you spend your time railing about lightening instead, as according to your own evidence of Nazi/white supremacist inflicted casualties (five per year) it presents ten times the threat (51 per year) that these groups do.
And as fond as I know you are of seeking out meaningless little errors you can nitpick and pretend unravels your opponents’ arguments, the fact remains that Harvard conducted a segregated ceremony for blacks only, which substantiates rather than negates my point that this country’s SJWs are attempting to create new forms of segregation, which obviously serve mostly to exacerbate resentment and conflict between the races rather than to achieve integration of the sort that allows everyone to live together free of bias. You’d do a lot better suggesting that whites and blacks spend more time trying to get to know each other as they actually are rather than endlessly seeking out new ways to drive them apart. Familiarity and experience is a far greater aid to acceptance of each other and eventual racial harmony than is an endless variety of wrong-headed segregationist policies and beliefs, whose purpose is not racial harmony but to self-congratulatedly pat yourselves on the back for kowtowing to blacks in an effort to make them think you’re on their side and want to make things better for them when in reality you’re just going for that endorphin rush you get from self-righteous do-gooderism and in turn making things worse for everyone involved.
And now, since I know you can keep this crap up all night, I’mma have to bow out now as I have a job and must earn a living. Let’s just say we both think the other is full of shit and call it a night, huh? Just remember in parting that both racial, societal and PC agitation is at an all time high and that liberal political tactics of divisiveness, villainization, anger and hate have created a tumultuous society where innumerable groups of people all hate each other and no progress is being made whatsoever in creating a country where true social justice has even a glimmer of a chance of ever coming into being.
And having stated that truth I bid you a restful good night.
Note to self: Starving Artist on record as saying that fatality record from Nazi/white supremacist terrorist violence not worth “railing about” because it is dwarfed by fatality rate from a particular type of natural disaster. Confidently await confirmation of this position from the same quarter at the next instance of fatalities from terrorist violence by other kinds of terrorists which also can’t compete with death toll from natural disaster.
Self: Got it, thanks.
No. That is not a fact. I just showed you the direct cite of Harvard sources that explained that the event in question was a student-run celebration event, not an actual graduation ceremony, and that it was not for blacks only, since students of all races were welcome.
You know, Starving Artist, for maybe a tenth of the expended energy that you put into extended accusatory fulminating to try to cover up the awkwardness of your being shown to be factually wrong about your claims, you could actually take the time to check your claims before making them and then, you know, not be factually wrong about them.
Yes, I know, I know, we liberal optimists and our utopian dreams. :rolleyes:
You also claimed that it was not blacks agitating:
I was just pointing out your (as usual) mistaken assertion that blacks aren’t “bringing up” this issue. I showed you evidence that in fact, black Americans have been publicly objecting to Confederate memorialization for a long time.
And we have (as in currently) plenty of black individuals and organizations “agitating about” Confederate statues on their own “behalf” these days too. As in, for example, this NAACP statement and this one and this one.
The fact is, Starving Artist, your attempt to portray the Confederate-memorial removal controversy as merely a manufactured issue by “SJWs” to stir up “divisiveness” using the poor passive black folks as an excuse for their dastardly machinations, rather than as a genuine problem that significant numbers of American blacks themselves actually do care about and have done for a long time, is just plain fallacious.
Just before I saw your nice message of goodnight I composed the following. I didn’t post it because I thought it would be unfair in light of your post apparently written in good will. Since you’ve chosen to continue your diatribe in my absence, I’ll go ahead and post what I’d written before I leave for the night.
Just saw this - HAW HAW HAW! Talk about a distinction without a difference!
I notice you’ve moved from ‘debunked’ to ‘questioned’. I guess that’s progress.
Nope, never said it was ‘common’, only that it happened.
From the linked article:
Perhaps you can tell us why these people came in for the treatment they did if not because they were in the military.
All time high? This is the kind of statement that leads people to believe that you are delusional in this subject. Times in which black people were getting routinely raped, brutalized, lynched, and the like, seem to me had more racial and societal agitation than the comparably trivial disagreements we have now.
People who wanted to conserve social and cultural institutions like slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, and the like, were by definition conservative, at least socially and culturally.
Yes, you showed a few small isolated incidents that occurred decades ago to counter my claims about what’s been going on recently on a national basis.
Yes, currently…after being stirred up by white SJWs, like I said.
I’ve said nothing about the aforementioned SJWs “using poor passive black folks”, nor even though it. What they’re doing is energizing and marshaling other [predominately] white SJWs to their cause and ennobling those in a position to do so to remove the statues and putting political pressure on others to remove them, all in an attempt to rewrite history while at the same time creating the resentment, hostility and mutual anger I already mentioned, thus making it even more difficult for the country’s racial issues to be eliminated.
As to this from you in another post:
The reason I don’t drill down seeking exactness on the minutia related to the points I’m making is…wait for it…they don’t @$#%&* matter! If I’m criticizing the motives and effectiveness of some form of SJW-ism that I say has taken place at 3rd & Elm, you’ll come charging in to point out it actually took place at 18th & Cedar and then behave as though the difference in inconsequential minutia refutes or negates the entire argument. The subject of what happened at Harvard is that it’s an example of the ways that modern SJW-ism is seeking to create rather than eliminate racial segregation. It doesn’t matter one whit what the official or unofficial standing of the SJWs in question were.
Well, sadly, you’re wrong. Most of the populace was divorced from all that and thought of race, when they thought of it at all, in terms of segregation, whereas now the entire country is up in arms over racial issues of one kind or another, a great deal of which comes from decades of false accusations of racism from the left, accusations that have nothing to do with real racism and are in fact simply disagreements with the left, which is widely known to view any opinion not their own as being due to some form of evil.
No one during my lifetime wanted to conserve slavery and the others have been gone for 50 years or more. And yet racial agitation from the left on a national and populational basis is exponentially more than it was then, and driven mostly, it appears, by a desire to make white people of today complicit in what was going on then. And once again it serves mainly to drive a wedge between the two races and create new resentments and hatreds that didn’t exist before, thereby delaying if not eliminating the time in which both races can co-exist peacefully and without the biases that stand in the way of that.
) What you seem to be confusedly trying to allude to are the 