Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Things we'd be talking about if the forum wasn't deadFollow

#5252 Jun 16 2018 at 12:20 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,610 posts
Almalieque wrote:
The root of the problem is people like you who want to deny socially created racial inequality. Yes, people on the other side are also part of the problem, labeling everything as a result of racism, but you are the other "half" of the problem, denying the existence of it. You say that you believe it exists, but when several scenarios are presented, you continuously find ways to justify the actions.
I wish I could rate you up, like, 10 times for this.
____________________________
Smash wrote:
My next mixed metaphor will include chocolate cake.

#5253 Jun 16 2018 at 12:30 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,610 posts
gbaji wrote:
Our nation was not "literally built on racism". It was built on a set of principles that absolutely refuted the very concept of racism (all men are created equal?), but in which slavery existed as a matter of fact.
Equal per social standing (mostly the concept of monarchy and all that brings) or religion for white males.


We already know you are breathtakingly undereducated, and we're kind of inured to it. But then you come along...again...and illuminate us all with the shining, yet empty, orb that is your skull.
____________________________
Smash wrote:
My next mixed metaphor will include chocolate cake.

#5254 Jun 16 2018 at 2:17 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,454 posts
gbaji wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Um... I presented this as a possibility way back in April 20th:
You did see your name mentioned as the exception in what you quoted right...?


Excepting me because I'm "not a credible option" suggested that my posts should just be ignored when talking about such points, and not "gee. He made exactly the right point, and we should pay attention to it cause it just might be super valid!". But I'll defer to whichever interpretation you intended.
I'm not suggesting you should be ignored, I'm stating that you are ignored. When was the last time anyone on this board ever said, "Hmm, maybe gbaji's right" after you made a statement? I know you say there are people who PM you and agree with you, but those aren't the people you're arguing with. The people you argue with, they pretty much ignore any option you present. Never stands a chance because it comes from you. So yea, not a credible option when arguing with those people.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#5255 Jun 16 2018 at 2:52 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,178 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Our nation was not "literally built on racism". It was built on a set of principles that absolutely refuted the very concept of racism (all men are created equal?), but in which slavery existed as a matter of fact. That conflict was known at the time, and every day after that, and arguably lead directly to the eventual elimination of that slavery (via a pretty violent civil war). If our nation had actually been built on racism, we'd still have slavery and everyone would think it was great (well, except the slaves).


Almalieque wrote:
You say that you believe it exists, but when several scenarios are presented, you continuously find ways to justify the actions.


Gbaji wrote:
Why would these presumed "favortist" white folks in charge care to do anything in response to a growing drug addiction problem that was occurring mostly among the poor and thus already had a baked in disproportionate negative effect on black people?
Smiley: rolleyes
People of California care primarily about the people in California, not Texas or New York. Likewise with Texas and New York.

Gbaji wrote:
That's a whole separate issue.
No, it's not. It's part of the big picture that you want to ignore by only focusing on small issues that you are able to directly attribute fault to black people.

Gbaji wrote:
It's not so much denying it, as questioning what exactly you mean when you say "socially created racial inequality". If you mean "a whole bunch of white people are racists and that's what causes the problems", I'm going to disagree with you. If you mean that "current social conditions result in racial inequalities", I'm 100% in agreement. The problem is that people use a phrase like the one you used, but then argue for "white racism is to blame".
You're literally making up stuff to argue your point. 1. There is no such thing as "white racism", it's just racism. 2. It takes two to tango and I've acknowledged that. You say that you do, but in every scenario, you attempt to justify actions that are most likely racially motivated. My God, you tried to justify this country not being built on slavery.

Gbaji wrote:
There is not one side blaming everything on race and the other insisting that race is never a factor.

Gbaji wrote:
It's one side blaming everything on race, and the other trying to examine each instance and determine what was the likely cause.
Smiley: lolSmiley: lolSmiley: lolSmiley: laughThank you for proving my point.
#5256 Jun 20 2018 at 7:46 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,384 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Our nation was not "literally built on racism". It was built on a set of principles that absolutely refuted the very concept of racism (all men are created equal?), but in which slavery existed as a matter of fact.
Equal per social standing (mostly the concept of monarchy and all that brings) or religion for white males.


No. Actual equality. But in a time and place in which class/race structures existed and with the knowledge that they couldn't just sweep that away in one single act. They built their foundation on a set of ideological assumptions that would force future generations to constantly assess the reality of the world they lived in at any given point in time against that foundation. Presumably with the hope that where the reality did not meet with the ideology, reality would gradually change, but only if they put that ideal vision out there in the first place.

And they were right.

Quote:
We already know you are breathtakingly undereducated, and we're kind of inured to it. But then you come along...again...and illuminate us all with the shining, yet empty, orb that is your skull.


You might just want to take a look in a mirror because it looks more to me like you're the one who isn't fully grasping something. You're free to wallow in ignorance if you wish, but this one seems pretty extreme. "Built on racism"? Really? That's an incredibly... simplistic, view of things. Painfully so. Again, if that were really the case, then why bother with all of the flowery language about equality, and rights, and whatnot? A thinking person might just think that there's a bit more to it than that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#5257 Jun 21 2018 at 1:12 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,610 posts
gbaji wrote:
"Built on racism"? Really? That's an incredibly... simplistic, view of things. Painfully so. Again, if that were really the case, then why bother with all of the flowery language about equality, and rights, and whatnot? A thinking person might just think that there's a bit more to it than that.
When the country was founded, slavery was an integral part of it. To pretend otherwise is less than simplistic; it's stupid.

Do you really think the (slave owning) founders were all like "I'd sure like to set my ni@@ers free, but golly, I just can't"?
____________________________
Smash wrote:
My next mixed metaphor will include chocolate cake.

#5258 Jun 21 2018 at 7:37 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,669 posts
gbaji wrote:
Excepting me because I'm "not a credible option" suggested that my posts should just be ignored when talking about such points
Well, yeah. Getting your input on pretty much anything is like getting marital counseling from Bobby Brown. And much like Bobby Brown, we don't seem to have any choice on it and it hurts. For instance:
gbaji wrote:
My original statement is correct.
No it wasn't, because:
gbaji wrote:
Her "rules" can be anything she wants them to be.
No they can't.
gbaji wrote:
Huh?
Neat, another of your tells.
gbaji wrote:
And I'm going to leave off the rest of your post, since it's just you doubling down on this same completely false assumption.
It's always fun when you insist reality and facts are the false assumptions.

I mean, if you think you're right on this one then you're the type of person that thought the narrator's plan to get free money in Fight Club was brilliant.
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Never stands a chance because it comes from you.
It's assumed wrong until read, at which point it's confirmed. You know, the whole "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt" saying in action.

Edited, Jun 21st 2018 9:52am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#5259 Jun 21 2018 at 7:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,338 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
"Built on racism"? Really? That's an incredibly... simplistic, view of things. Painfully so. Again, if that were really the case, then why bother with all of the flowery language about equality, and rights, and whatnot? A thinking person might just think that there's a bit more to it than that.
When the country was founded, slavery was an integral part of it. To pretend otherwise is less than simplistic; it's stupid.

Do you really think the (slave owning) founders were all like "I'd sure like to set my ni@@ers free, but golly, I just can't"?



Jefferson said almost exactly that.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#5260 Jun 21 2018 at 10:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You have General Lee's letter (bizarrely oft cited by Civil War revisionists as how "opposed" to slavery he was) where he says "Gee golly, it's a shame that we have to keep all these blacks as slaves but otherwise they'd just be beast-people, incapable of caring for themselves. God actually WANTS them to be slaves working in our plantations so we righteous white dudes can shoulder the burden of turning them from animals into productive human beings -- might, you know, take a while so God needs them picking cotton in the meanwhile".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#5261 Jun 21 2018 at 10:42 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,291 posts
How else do you expect them to get to White Heaven?

____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#5262 Jun 21 2018 at 4:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,384 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
"Built on racism"? Really? That's an incredibly... simplistic, view of things. Painfully so. Again, if that were really the case, then why bother with all of the flowery language about equality, and rights, and whatnot? A thinking person might just think that there's a bit more to it than that.
When the country was founded, slavery was an integral part of it. To pretend otherwise is less than simplistic; it's stupid.


Yes, it is. Here's me totally ignoring that slavery was an integral part of it:

gbaji wrote:
Our nation was not "literally built on racism". It was built on a set of principles that absolutely refuted the very concept of racism (all men are created equal?), but in which slavery existed as a matter of fact. That conflict was known at the time, and every day after that, and arguably lead directly to the eventual elimination of that slavery (via a pretty violent civil war). If our nation had actually been built on racism, we'd still have slavery and everyone would think it was great (well, except the slaves).


Oh wait! That's me, directly addressing the issue at hand and not ignoring it at all! Imagine that. I'm not "pretending otherwise". My entire point revolves directly around the contradiction of a nation in which those who founded it wanted to establish principles of liberty and equality, but lived in a society where those things currently did not exist, and how they got around that problem.

Quote:
Do you really think the (slave owning) founders were all like "I'd sure like to set my ni@@ers free, but golly, I just can't"?


First off, what Samira said.

Secondly, you're presenting this in a simplistic manner. The whole problem was that they wanted a nation where "all men are created equal", but had slavery. The issue of slavery was absolutely brought up, but it was a non-starter for the Southern states. So yes, they were aware that many slaver owners were not going to be willing to just give up their slaves. So they did exactly what I mentioned above. They created a system based on an ideology that was innately in opposition to slavery and allowed history to take its course, hoping that someday that inherent contradiction would lead to the end of the practice.

And they were right.

The alternative would have resulted in the formation of two different nations, one in the south with slavery and one in the north without. It's an interesting bit of speculation as to what might have happened differently in history had they made that choice, but I suspect it would have been a bad choice in the long run. It's very likely, for example, the the much smaller USA might have lost the war of 1812 and been pulled back into the British empire. It's also likely (again ignoring other side variables), that the Louisiana purchase would have been sold to our hypothetical CSA (Confederate States of America for lack of a better label), which would have possibly resulted in everything West of the Mississippi being under control of a slave owning state (and thus inheriting that property). So even if the USA didn't lose in 1812, it would have found itself a relatively small hemmed in nation mostly in the Northeast, with the Ohio territory being as far "West" as it expanded, and dwarfed by a much larger CSA to the south.

Pure speculation, of course. My point is that the founders absolutely intended for slavery to be abolished (someday), they just knew it wasn't something they could do right then. Even if every Southern representative at the Continental Congress personally was in favor of abolishing it (which is probably not true), they could never have ratified a Constitution that did so within their respective states.

Insisting 2 and a half centuries later that this meant that the nation was "founded on racism" is an absurdly simplistic re-interpretation of history. It just doesn't match the facts. Again, if that was the case, they would have done away with a number of statements in the Constitution which contradicted the very concept of slavery in the first place, and thus prevented any future conflict over the issue from arising. They didn't. Thus, your assumption must be wrong. They at best "allowed" (tolerated) the institution, out of necessity.

Edited, Jun 21st 2018 3:06pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#5263 Jun 21 2018 at 5:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It's very likely, for example, the the much smaller USA might have lost the war of 1812 and been pulled back into the British empire

Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh Ah you. No. Just no. You don't know anything about history, do you? There is a zero percent chance that the British Empire would have tried to capture the United States (or even just the northern half thereof). In fact, without America saber-rattling for a fight and hawks in Congress with dreams of capturing Canada, the War of 1812 probably wouldn't have happened at all. A smaller USA likely wouldn't have had the same delusions and Britain wanted to concentrate on France, not fuck around in America.

Edited, Jun 21st 2018 6:36pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#5264 Jun 21 2018 at 7:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,384 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's very likely, for example, the the much smaller USA might have lost the war of 1812 and been pulled back into the British empire

Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh Ah you. No. Just no. You don't know anything about history, do you? There is a zero percent chance that the British Empire would have tried to capture the United States (or even just the northern half thereof). In fact, without America saber-rattling for a fight and hawks in Congress with dreams of capturing Canada, the War of 1812 probably wouldn't have happened at all. A smaller USA likely wouldn't have had the same delusions and Britain wanted to concentrate on France, not fuck around in America.


Uh. This is what you decided to go off on? Um...Ok. What part of "this is pure speculation" and "even if this didn't happen, here's some other ways in which things might have gone awry" did you not get?

That's one serious nit you're picking there Joph. Smiley: tongue
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#5265 Jun 21 2018 at 10:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Your "pure speculation" was backing up this:
Quote:
They created a system based on an ideology that was innately in opposition to slavery and allowed history to take its course, hoping that someday that inherent contradiction would lead to the end of the practice.

And they were right.

You have no idea if "they were right" and if your best guess is a laughable misunderstanding of history beyond "Once there was a war!" then you really have zero argument at all. You have no idea if "they were right" and you're just making a lame apologist argument in favor of keeping slavery for as long as we did. Your other "alternate history" ideas are equally stupid but I settled for just laughing at the one.

Also, not to belabor the obvious, but someone who has so shallow an understanding of American history as to make your claims isn't anyone who should be lecturing on the nuances of the nation's founding.

Edited, Jun 22nd 2018 9:12am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#5266 Jun 22 2018 at 12:05 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,610 posts
gtbaji wrote:
My point is that the founders absolutely intended for slavery to be abolished (someday), they just knew it wasn't something they could do right then.
Link me something from, say, the Federalsit Papers or something from that time frame saying that and I'll lend you idea some credence. Other than that, it's just you making things up.
____________________________
Smash wrote:
My next mixed metaphor will include chocolate cake.

#5267 Jun 22 2018 at 8:16 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,669 posts
gbaji wrote:
Pure speculation, of course.
No! Really?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#5268 Jun 29 2018 at 8:03 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,669 posts
FLORIDA AGAIN wrote:
EASTPOINT, Fla. – John Matthew Polous watched a "controlled-burn" fire for three days as it consumed foliage outside his tiny community on the Florida Panhandle. And then he watched as it quickly raged out of control. What he doesn't understand is why it took government officials until Wednesday to acknowledge that they were the ones responsible for the blaze that destroyed 36 homes, including his.

Polous, a shrimper and oysterman, lost 14 boats, his home and pickup trucks in the quick-moving conflagration Sunday that left behind a trail of ash and ruins in Eastpoint, just across the river from the historic town of Apalachicola.

"They finally admitted to what done it, now let's see what they are going to do," Polous, 51, said while walking through the burned remains of his home. "Why was they even burning this time of year back here? That don't make sense, but they was and there's nothing nobody can do about it."

Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam announced Wednesday that the fire was caused by a Tallahassee company hired by the state's wildlife commission to do controlled burns on state lands. Putnam said an investigation by his office eliminated other possible causes, including lightning, arson or an accident.

The fire burned more than 800 acres (320 hectares) and officials said they were suspending the practice of controlled burns statewide while they investigate. Controlled burns are used as a tool to manage forests. They involve burning away underbrush to lessen the danger of future wildfires.

Polous said his house was the first to burn, and the fire came up quickly — he didn't even have time to get his wallet, which was lost in the fire.

"All I could hear was nothing but like a freight train, because it was blowing and it was burning. ... I walked out in the backyard and saw it coming, and that was it. Within a matter of minutes, it was gone, everything I own," he said. "Hopefully something will happen and we can get paid for it. And I hope everybody that lost a house out here gets paid."

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission said that the private company Wildlands Services was contracted to burn 480 acres (194 hectares) on June 18. The agency said 580 acres (235 hectares) of private land separated the controlled burn from the Eastpoint neighborhood. State records show that the company was given a three-year contract worth nearly $60,000 in March to do controlled burns near the Apalachicola River. So far, the company had been paid more than $25,000.

Doug Williams, the owner of Wildlands Service, told the Tallahassee Democrat he had not been contacted by state officials and did not know that Putnam said investigators had determined his company was responsible for the wildfire. He did not return phone calls or emails from The Associated Press.

Faith Grant was spending her day using her car to drag metal from the burned wreckage of the home she shared with her husband, their four kids and her mother- and father-in-law. She's still searching for five dogs that ran off during the fire, which killed a hog they had penned behind the home. She was trying to find a fireproof safe amid the debris with no success.

"It left the truck that don't run and burnt the two trucks that did," said Grant, who is 21 years old.

While officials continue to investigate the fire, Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis said the state plans to set up a claims office in Franklin County on Thursday. In the meantime, officials will offer up to $5,000 to each household affected by the fire to pay for emergency living expenses, including temporary housing and food, he said.

"It's pretty devastating when you see folks don't have a place to go to," said Patronis, who as a legislator used to represent part of the region.

Polous, meanwhile, was sanguine about his situation.

"I've been burned, shot, blowed up and I'm still here," Polous said. "I'm 51 years old and I'm still here. So, it's not like I ain't seen some bad times and hard times. Life moves on, you just have to move on with it."
Florida.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#5269 Jun 29 2018 at 8:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Quote:
"It left the truck that don't run and burnt the two trucks that did," said Grant, who is 21 years old.
Typical government inefficiency, this is what you get when you use no bid contracts. Bet there was some company out there that would have burnt all 3 trucks for half the price. Smiley: disappointed

Edited, Jun 29th 2018 7:42am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#5270 Jun 29 2018 at 9:18 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,761 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Quote:
"It left the truck that don't run and burnt the two trucks that did," said Grant, who is 21 years old.
Typical government inefficiency, this is what you get when you use no bid contracts. Bet there was some company out there that would have burnt all 3 trucks for half the price. Smiley: disappointed

This is ageism, pure and simple, that truck is just as viable as a fuel source as the running trucks, but because it "don't run", because it ain't "Jim Fixx", it don't matter.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#5271 Jun 29 2018 at 9:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
She's still searching for five dogs that ran off during the fire, which killed a hog they had penned behind the home.

The dogs or the fire?

I've seen "controlled" burns go bad before but the worst I've ever personally seen was some house siding damage.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#5272 Jun 29 2018 at 9:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
She's still searching for five dogs that ran off during the fire, which killed a hog they had penned behind the home.

The dogs or the fire?
Dogs killed the fire to save the pig. Haven't you seen Paw Patrol?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#5273 Jun 29 2018 at 10:03 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,669 posts
You can't kill a pig with fire, you can only cook it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#5274 Jun 29 2018 at 10:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Dogs are furious about this one weird trick to make pigs better
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#5275 Jun 29 2018 at 1:43 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,625 posts
If nothing else, this article brings to light the critical lack of education in the South.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#5276 Jun 29 2018 at 1:50 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,625 posts
In other news...

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pennsylvania/philadelphia/cinemark-university-city-theater-police-movies-while-black-jurassic-world-20180625.html

These parents should have just left and gone home without their kids.

https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/oh-cuyahoga/viral-video-police-called-on-12-year-old-mowing-grass-which-ends-up-getting-him-more-business

Clearly he's trespassing and should be locked up, or just shot on sight like Tamir.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 70 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (70)