talkpolitics | (no subject)

Entry tags:

(no subject)

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/313613

Second amendment rights. But only for Christians and McCain voters.

This is really dumb, and I'd like to see everyone in this comm agree that the owner of this store is violating the law and discriminating unjustly. That is my view, if there is another view out there, please, share it with me.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I'm sure that this is something in history you're entirely ignorant of, so I'll enlighten you:

http://withoutsanctuary.org/

http://kathmanduk2.wordpress.com/2008/12/24/center-for-civil-and-human-rights-lynching-postcards-of-inhumanity-exhibit-january-2011/

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/projects/2001/06/lynching/page1.shtml

http://www.commondreams.org/views/070100-103.htm

http://filmakers.com/index.php?a=filmDetail&filmID=1080

If people are holding fucking picnics under dead bodies, that is indeed a celebration and something people freely associated at. So don't give me this bullshit that this kind of lawlessness would have changed without the Feds.

No, actually, it isn't. What I'm not "entirely ignorant of" is such a ridiculously absurd comparison.

OK, then. So explain to me then how if people are holding picnics and passing out postcards of hangings like this done by mobs for mobs with an explicitly economic purpose in mind was not like going to the grocery store in its heyday? If they felt there was the least possibility of being prosecuted for it, there would have been a cover-up, not a commemoration, right? There wasn't, so the assumption that this was going to change without sending Federal agents and soldiers in is nonsense, this assumption is what the libertarian naive at best misunderstanding of Jim Crow relies upon. Done your way, the good people of the South would still be sending postcards like this and commemorating the murders of people hardy enough to succeed despite the system.

So explain to me then how if people are holding picnics and passing out postcards of hangings like this done by mobs for mobs with an explicitly economic purpose in mind was not like going to the grocery store in its heyday?

How about, since this is your absurd analogy, you explain how going to the supermarket is like lynching.

I'm going to rephrase it so we don't go through 200 comments of my explaining something and your asking me to do this:

Going to the supermarket is a banal, everyday activity done by families, one essential for families surviving. Lynching in its heyday was a banal, everyday activity, one even commemorated and celebrated, and essential for society surviving. Lynching was an acceptable form of chaos and disorder. Is this clear enough or will it be another "you explain what you say" after I've done so repeatedly.

So because lynching, which was the brutal murder of someone simply for being black, was a banal activity, going to the supermarket will thus result in the brutal murder of black people?

Sigh, you misunderstand the purpose and intention both of the analogy: the supermarket and lynching (and race riots also) served economic purposes and neither manifestation of racism, the mob or the pogrom, would have disappeared had the states been left to themselves. You keep claiming this would have happened otherwise in contrast to all evident, observable, verifiable historical records, why don't you back up your assertion here for a change instead of nitpicking mine and continuing to shift goalposts so you never answer a thing, only I do?

I understand the purpose fine. What the analogy is continues to be absurd. You're comparing brutal murder to private discrimination, which is nothing short of ridiculous. Re-opening the door to allow people to associate freely will not result in the systematic murder of other races, colors, or creeds.

No, I'm comparing two fundamental underpinnings of economies to each other and you reject the nature of the assertion. Re-opening the door for people to ban blacks from sitting at counters and returning to enforcing Jim Crow laws still on the books once again in that selective fashion will lead to this, as it did the first time it was tried. Blacks and other groups banned do not accept the banning, the only way to make it so they would is to well, use mobs and pogroms, then we're back in where we started.

, I'm comparing two fundamental underpinnings of economies to each other and you reject the nature of the assertion.

Yes. I don't know how else to make you understand that turning someone away from a store is by no means equitable to brutal murder.

Re-opening the door for people to ban blacks from sitting at counters and returning to enforcing Jim Crow laws still on the books once again in that selective fashion will lead to this, as it did the first time it was tried.

The Jim Crow strawman needs to go - no one is calling for government-enforced segregation. This might be part of why you don't get this.

I'm using the analogy because this did lead to brutal murder for most of a century following the election of Rutherford B. Hayes. I'm using facts and what people actually did to argue my case, you are not.

Actually, people are calling for it, the Pauls both want the repeal of the 1964 due to it being unconstitutional. The elder Paul has a deep-set connection with Neo-Nazis, so he's pretty much a good ol' boy of the most unpleasant sort. The younger one's an MD who wants to gut the entitlements of everyone but MDs so he's just a hypocrite with less of the old man's racism.

I'm using the analogy because this did lead to brutal murder for most of a century following the election of Rutherford B. Hayes. I'm using facts and what people actually did to argue my case, you are not.

It wasn't the act of discrimination that caused murder but people being murderous assholes. No one is looking to legalize lynching.

Actually, people are calling for it, the Pauls both want the repeal of the 1964 due to it being unconstitutional.

Can you please point out where they have said "we want the government to again force people to discriminate based on race whether they want to or not?" You're "using facts" here, so...

Legalized lynching would result when these laws resume being enforced.

Yes, when they said they wanted the Act repealed. Repealing Civil Rights Acts is not a good base to build peace, amity, and kindness and goodwill toward men off of.

Legalized lynching would result when these laws resume being enforced.

...no. No it wouldn't. Murder is murder is murder. This is why your analogy is terrible.

Yes, when they said they wanted the Act repealed. Repealing Civil Rights Acts is not a good base to build peace, amity, and kindness and goodwill toward men off of.

Repealing civil rights acts != force the government to force people to discriminate.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only