Virginia Republicans, Stealing The Senate?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Whether or not "both sides do it", it's a dick move.

I mean if I got my stuff stolen, and the guy who stole it said "But I'm not the only one stealing, what's your problem!?" I'd still take him to court over it.

Skeleon:
You'd have a point if that meant equal representation more or less, reflecting the voter numbers. But that's not what it is, is it? The differences on a state-by-state level being so small makes it even more egregious if you think about it and the resulting difference due to gerrymandering, actually.

No it makes it less egregious. That is 20,000 per state. That is easily explained by voter turnout rates. Plus, the article you mentioned makes the rather poor assumption that people who vote for Obama automatically vote for Democratic House Members. Not everybody straight tickets (I sure as hell don't).

What I'm saying is that you could get rid of making large swaths of the country, be they heavily Democratic or heavily Republican, basically irrelevant. I don't know why you'd find voters being irrelevant a good thing.

Did I ever say I support the current system? Just because the article you were referring to was too simplistic doesn't mean that there are no problems with the system. I do not like the American electoral system but that does not make the thinkprogress article any less simplistic.

But as I said, this isn't going to happen because of the motives of the people in charge. They couldn't give a rat's ass about proper representation if it meant risking their own power.

Yeah, I remember Dems were calling for getting rid of all or nothing states a few years ago. How the tide has changed.

Asita:
With all due respect, I think you need to step back and read what people are actually saying instead of what you want them to have said. Very few people have pointed to this particular detail as a primary point and it's disingenous to act as if they had.

You do realize I said some people right? Those some people include people I have talked to on this topic. I never said everybody.

Naturally. I despise the practice, as I feel it compromises the democratic process. I have to say though, the question is rather insulting on several levels, not the least of which is that you're using it to ask people to ignore the spokesman's own statement that there were racially aligned goals.

When did the spokesman say that they were doing something other than general purpose gerrymandering?

Tell me, where is all of the outrage over the fact that my district will remain tied to a Republican bloc? Gerrymandering happens all over the place. I want to have a discussion over gerrymandering. Instead I get the race card. It seems that that is about the only way to get anyone's attention on this site.

Correction, it's a Federal Holiday and given its significance perhaps the single worst day of the year to specifically create a 'black district', bringing to mind the very segregation that Civil Rights leaders fought against.

So in other words, you are adding meaning to a very common event. I do not think that that is fair to anyone.

Also, Civil Rights leaders create "black districts" as well. They just like to spread them out a little more. Basically instead of creating a district is almost entirely black they split that district in such a way that the majority of the people in the new districts will vote for one group. That is another form of gerrymandering. Do you call that racism?

On its own? No. In this particular context? It really does come off as flipping the bird at African Americans.

Why? You do realize that the war was not over slavery right?

Let me tell you a story. After the Civil War was over there was a Church service in Richmond. When the Preacher asked people to come forward, a black man walked to the front of the room and kneeled down. Everyone was stunned. But suddenly a white man stood up and walked to the front of the room. He knelt down right next to the black man. Slowly people began to join them. The white man was Robert E. Lee. Let me ask you something, what do you know about Robert E. Lee? Probably the fact that he was a Confederate General. In other words, you probably know about as much about him as you know about Jackson.

Hyperbole doesn't help you here.

How many people have a day named after them in the US? Not many. Aside from Columbus Day how many of those people are not revered and held to extremely high regard? In fact, at least one of the days happens to be named after the son of god.

...Again, with all due respect, the question actually makes me wonder if you read the point at all. Given where you cut off what you quoted from me, however, I also find myself faced with suggesting that you intentionally ignored it. Which would indeed be perplexing given that I even made a point of noting that I found it very likely that this detail was coincidental, but that it still drew a very unfortunate parallel to old exceptionally racist legislature.

You are making points that are completely fucking irrelevant. You are not proving in any way shape or form that what they did should be considered to even have a ting of racism.

Actually, I think the crux of the issue is that you seem to be confusing the phrase 'racist undertones' with 'overt racism'. If I may, I'd like to help clarify that.

Undertone: Noun. An underlying quality, element or feeling. Something that suggests a particular idea or feeling without directly saying or showing it. It's subtext, intentional or otherwise.

I understand perfectly. You are attempting to say that they implied something. In debate circles people who do that are considered to be on one of the lowest rungs. The reason is that you can say that they meant something without showing any real evidence and it is difficult to disprove because it is all subjective. Most people find that debate tactic insulting to their intelligence.

So sorry, but that shit does not fly with me. You say that you see some vague racist undertones. Well guess what, I see a lot of racist undertones in you implying racist undertones. Whether self-hating or just plain racist, you have implied that whites cannot talk about or do certain things on certain days without being metaphorically crucified for it. Is my implication more valid than yours? No. Both of them are bullshit. I am just willing to admit it.

Jux:
And, like I said before, its sad that you fail to see it, but not really my problem.

If you cannot prove it then your debate skills need practice.

I suppose they'd have to be lynching effigys of black people before you'd acknowledge any sort of racism. Oh well.

Tell me, have you ever seen true racism? Have you ever seen a Klan meeting? I saw one from afar years ago. I have had racial epithets thrown at me. I have had my life threatened because of my race. I have been physically assaulted because of my race.

Sorry, I find it hard to jump on the racist bandwagon. I have seen true racism and I cannot fathom how you can see it here.

farson135:

Asita:
With all due respect, I think you need to step back and read what people are actually saying instead of what you want them to have said. Very few people have pointed to this particular detail as a primary point and it's disingenous to act as if they had.

You do realize I said some people right? Those some people include people I have talked to on this topic. I never said everybody.

You do realize that I never claimed that you said everybody, right? What I did say was that it seemed highly likely that those 'some people' you referred to likely didn't present this detail as the principle point you seem to be interpreting it as.

farson135:

Naturally. I despise the practice, as I feel it compromises the democratic process. I have to say though, the question is rather insulting on several levels, not the least of which is that you're using it to ask people to ignore the spokesman's own statement that there were racially aligned goals.

When did the spokesman say that they were doing something other than general purpose gerrymandering?

Tell me, where is all of the outrage over the fact that my district will remain tied to a Republican bloc? Gerrymandering happens all over the place. I want to have a discussion over gerrymandering. Instead I get the race card. It seems that that is about the only way to get anyone's attention on this site.

Again, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that 'racist undertones' is equivalent to overt racism when the very concept of undertones don't even require deliberate intent.

farson135:

Correction, it's a Federal Holiday and given its significance perhaps the single worst day of the year to specifically create a 'black district', bringing to mind the very segregation that Civil Rights leaders fought against.

So in other words, you are adding meaning to a very common event. I do not think that that is fair to anyone.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. The day honors a Civil Rights leader and thus is intimately tied to the Civil Rights Movement. That much should be self-evident. The creation of a new racial district also naturally parallels the idea of segregation. That much is merely pattern recognition. It naturally follows that actions which naturally bring to mind segregation have their unfortunate nature especially highlighted when performed on a day honoring anyone who fought to end the practices the act parallels. This is very basic social analysis.

farson135:
Also, Civil Rights leaders create "black districts" as well. They just like to spread them out a little more. Basically instead of creating a district is almost entirely black they split that district in such a way that the majority of the people in the new districts will vote for one group. That is another form of gerrymandering. Do you call that racism?

...If I may offer some friendly advice, farson? Take a step back, take a few deep breaths, try to emotionally distance yourself from the topic, and then read what you said again. You literally just asked me if I'd call gerrymandering racism if race was not involved, rather disqualifying it by nature, which doesn't logically follow from anything I've said as I never so much as implied that gerrymandering itself was intrinsically racist.

farson135:

On its own? No. In this particular context? It really does come off as flipping the bird at African Americans.

Why? You do realize that the war was not over slavery right?

Half true. The Civil War had several major aspects to it, with among the most notable being a feeling of disenfrancisment within the South due to the belief that the northern states and their candidates didn't understand or care about the South. This in turn was due in no small part to the radically different economies of the two areas, with the South's being particularly reliant on the use of plantations which had a 'special need' for slave labor. One of the major arguments of the time was actually about whether slavery fell under the domain of state rights, a point that the South championed, or not, rather neatly linking the arguments of States' rights v. Federal legislation with the abolitionist movement.

Now it's certainly true that the Civil War wasn't entirely about slavery, but few historians even passingly familiar with the subject would say it was not among the major points of contention. Heck, that conflict itself is noted in the Confederate's Vice President Stephens "Cornerstone Speech", which states, and I quote: "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition".

farson135:
Let me tell you a story. After the Civil War was over there was a Church service in Richmond. When the Preacher asked people to come forward, a black man walked to the front of the room and kneeled down. Everyone was stunned. But suddenly a white man stood up and walked to the front of the room. He knelt down right next to the black man. Slowly people began to join them. The white man was Robert E. Lee. Let me ask you something, what do you know about Robert E. Lee? Probably the fact that he was a Confederate General. In other words, you probably know about as much about him as you know about Jackson.

Careful with what you assume about other people, farson. I believe I've already demonstrated myself to be more familiar with the topic of the Civil War than you presumed I was, and I'm familiar enough with Lee to know that there's a popular belief that he was personally opposed to slavery. What I know about him, however, is ultimately irrelevant to this discussion, as is the story in question and indeed the man himself. Indeed it wouldn't be relevant unless I was making accusations towards the man himself.

(On a tangent, I just took a gander at your profile, and given that it says you're an instructor, I'm very concerned that you're taking such a belligerent attitude towards people you are assuming are less informed than you)

farson135:

Hyperbole doesn't help you here.

How many people have a day named after them in the US? Not many. Aside from Columbus Day how many of those people are not revered and held to extremely high regard? In fact, at least one of the days happens to be named after the son of god.

And yet respect for a person does not equate to treating them as a demigod.

farson135:

...Again, with all due respect, the question actually makes me wonder if you read the point at all. Given where you cut off what you quoted from me, however, I also find myself faced with suggesting that you intentionally ignored it. Which would indeed be perplexing given that I even made a point of noting that I found it very likely that this detail was coincidental, but that it still drew a very unfortunate parallel to old exceptionally racist legislature.

You are making points that are completely fucking irrelevant. You are not proving in any way shape or form that what they did should be considered to even have a ting of racism.

...If you feel the need to include profanity in your responses, you really need to step back and let yourself calm down, especially given that you feel the need to do so about a point I acknowledged as little more than a funny detail with a very unfortunate parallel.

farson135:

Actually, I think the crux of the issue is that you seem to be confusing the phrase 'racist undertones' with 'overt racism'. If I may, I'd like to help clarify that.

Undertone: Noun. An underlying quality, element or feeling. Something that suggests a particular idea or feeling without directly saying or showing it. It's subtext, intentional or otherwise.

I understand perfectly. You are attempting to say that they implied something.

Wrong. What I am attempting to explain is that the acts themselves create undertones, and that undertones can exist regardless of intent. It's the same basic concept as 'unfortunate implications'. That's the part you aren't getting in this discussion. The manner in which the act parallels certain trends of the past by nature gives it racist undertones. That does not mean the act was itself racist just that what happened has too much in common with those aforementioned trends for us not to notice.

farson135:
In debate circles people who do that are considered to be on one of the lowest rungs. The reason is that you can say that they meant something without showing any real evidence and it is difficult to disprove because it is all subjective. Most people find that debate tactic insulting to their intelligence.

Actually, the 'lowest rungs' are more populated by people failing to meet proper debate form, using such tactics as personal attacks against their opposition, failing to address the topic, and making use of formal logical fallacies such as affirming the consequent.

farson135:
So sorry, but that shit does not fly with me. You say that you see some vague racist undertones. Well guess what, I see a lot of racist undertones in you implying racist undertones. Whether self-hating or just plain racist, you have implied that whites cannot talk about or do certain things on certain days without being metaphorically crucified for it. Is my implication more valid than yours? No. Both of them are bullshit. I am just willing to admit it.

I have done no such thing. I made no commentary about racial relations in such general terms, I've made no statement about this incident reflecting on a greater whole, heck, I never so much as claimed that those involved were themselves racists. I said that the act had racist undertones, which I've described. If you disagree, that's your perogative, but I'll thank you very much to not try to cow me into silence through attempting to shame me with disingenuous assertions.

recruit00:

wintercoat:

harmonic:
Those evil bastards. Man, when will they learn? Surely this has never happened in politics. Let's spent 30 seconds on google.

http://www.propublica.org/article/in-california-democrats-redistricting-strategy-paid-off
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/11/07/expert-redistricting-a-big-factor-in-democrats-wins-in-illinois/
http://www.in.gov/legislative/senate_democrats/redistricting.htm
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/19/1162777/-AZ-Redistricting-The-Limits-of-a-Democratic-Gerrymander
http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/virginia-politics/general-assembly/schapiro-redistricting-ploy-empowers-out-of-power-democrats/article_58590608-4072-5440-b5fd-8c519dd11f93.html
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-07-21/news/ct-met-illinois-redistricting-lawsuit20110721_1_map-districts-redrawing-legislative-boundaries

Somebody using the "the other side does it too!" argument. Everybody take a shot! Or is it Republicans only, since he used "the Dems do it too!"? Or do the Democrats drink? Shit, the R&P drinking game is hard...

We REALLY need that game to be made. Though I don't think anybody would make it past the first page...

OT: Yes, Democrats do gerrymander. But the Democrats don't gerrymander while a black senator is out of town for MLK day to make more Republican sections with a black filled area while doing it in honor of Stonewall Jackson. There's gerrymandering and then there is evil.

no....they are pretty much the same damn thing when you get down to it. And this is coming from someone who has voted for Obama twice, so i have no particular loyalty to the republican party.

I would like to see both sides reamed for these acts. Fat chance that will happen. No way in hell both sides will accept responsibility, they will fight to the death in who gets the sole blame.

I'm going to just skip the part where I try to argue with people about whether or not this was racist. If you can look at all the facts and come to the conclusion that this was not incredibly racially insensitive, than nothing short of a burning cross will ever convince you otherwise.

Instead, I'll leave this: "In 2012 Democratic House candidates received nearly 1.4 million more votes than their Republican counterparts. Yet Republican candidates currently hold a 33-seat majority in the House".

Saying that "both sides do it" is straight-up false equivalency. Republicans are getting manhandled in presidental and senate elections quite routinely now, yet they hold a sizable lead in the house... despite receiving notably fewer overall votes. Hardly seems like a good representational model, does it?

The president carried several states that sent a majority of republicans to the house. Are we to imagine that so many people, in this highly partisan nation, actually split their votes? Or is it more likely that the districts are drawn up with no regard to actual population density/distribution in order to rig things for a party that can no longer win on its own merits?

farson135:

Jux:
And, like I said before, its sad that you fail to see it, but not really my problem.

If you cannot prove it then your debate skills need practice.

I could argue till I'm blue in the face that the earth is round, but if you're not willing to accept the evidence, does that mean my debate skills need practice, or just that you're obstinate?

farson135:

I suppose they'd have to be lynching effigys of black people before you'd acknowledge any sort of racism. Oh well.

Tell me, have you ever seen true racism? Have you ever seen a Klan meeting? I saw one from afar years ago. I have had racial epithets thrown at me. I have had my life threatened because of my race. I have been physically assaulted because of my race.

Sorry, I find it hard to jump on the racist bandwagon. I have seen true racism and I cannot fathom how you can see it here.

So now you get to decide what's 'true' racism too? Amazing. I've seen the face of racism mate, and while having your life threatened over your race may be more personally scary, what makes racism so insidious is its ability to be subtle.

I hate how people here try to reject the "Both sides do it" argument. It is an extremely valid argument in this case. You have a group of people who use gerrymandering by Republicans to spout hatred for that party and to garner support for the opposition, who are also guilty of gerrymandering. That's what we call Irony... and ignorance... Ironic ignorance?

cthulhuspawn82:
I hate how people here try to reject the "Both sides do it" argument. It is an extremely valid argument in this case.

Is it? I'm yet to come across clear examples of democratic gerrymandering.

Seen a few examples where republicans accused them of it, but it never became clear just how the democrats would profit from it, nor did it became obvious that it was by design.

Also there was that graph earlier on that showed the republicans benefit from gerrymandering on a massive scale, taking states while only getting a minority of the votes, sometimes a pretty small minority too.

Blablahb:
Also there was that graph earlier on that showed the republicans benefit from gerrymandering on a massive scale, taking states while only getting a minority of the votes, sometimes a pretty small minority too.

To be fair, that is partially to do with the nature of both sides' electorate. Typically, you will find that Democrat voters live in major cities, while Republican voters are more rural. So short of slicing the state up like a pizza (with the "slices" converging in the largest city in the state), it is inevitable that this will happen. The major city will be one or two districts, and the rest of the state could be three or four. Even if the Democrats win by landslides in their districts, their votes don't mean anything in the rural districts. So looking at straight numbers of votes is misleading, even before gerrymandering is considered.

farson135:
Why? You do realize that the war was not over slavery right?

Yeah, all these states just wanted to declare a right of secession because they didn't like Lincoln's positions on trade with China and railroad subsidies. One can claim it was about other things as well, but it was definitely about slavery. The issue of slavery was the impetus. The war was about the Southern way of life, also known as slavery. The war was about the legitimacy of Southern politics, which were tainted by slavery. The war was about a right to secede from the Union, and the issue which prompted states to want to secede was slavery. The war was about state's rights... to allow their citizens to keep slaves.

cthulhuspawn82:
I hate how people here try to reject the "Both sides do it" argument. It is an extremely valid argument in this case. You have a group of people who use gerrymandering by Republicans to spout hatred for that party and to garner support for the opposition, who are also guilty of gerrymandering. That's what we call Irony... and ignorance... Ironic ignorance?

So if I break into your house, wreck up the place and make away with all your valuables, all I have to do is point at someone else and say "But they're doing it too!" and suddenly my act becomes acceptable? Or I dunno, if a guy beats his wife, he should get away with saying "But other men do it too!" or something?

Disgusting.

Asita:
You do realize that I never claimed that you said everybody, right? What I did say was that it seemed highly likely that those 'some people' you referred to likely didn't present this detail as the principle point you seem to be interpreting it as.

I say some people. You admit that some people believe it. Yet you accuse me of talking about everyone else but those people. WTF?

The day honors a Civil Rights leader and thus is intimately tied to the Civil Rights Movement. That much should be self-evident. The creation of a new racial district also naturally parallels the idea of segregation. That much is merely pattern recognition. It naturally follows that actions which naturally bring to mind segregation have their unfortunate nature especially highlighted when performed on a day honoring anyone who fought to end the practices the act parallels. This is very basic social analysis.

No, it is bullshit analysis. If I tried that shit in my thesis my professor would throw it back in my face. More below.

...If I may offer some friendly advice, farson? Take a step back, take a few deep breaths, try to emotionally distance yourself from the topic, and then read what you said again. You literally just asked me if I'd call gerrymandering racism if race was not involved

If I may make a suggestion. Take a step back and read what I wrote. Try again-

"Also, Civil Rights leaders create "black districts" as well. They just like to spread them out a little more. Basically instead of creating a district is almost entirely black they split that district in such a way that the majority of the people in the new districts will vote for one group. That is another form of gerrymandering. Do you call that racism?"

In other words, many civil rights leaders split blacks up into several districts. It is called cracking the bloc. It takes a bloc of voters and splits them into groups just large enough to keep a district but small enough so that the bloc will be in as many districts as possible. That is one form of gerrymandering. Many Dems take large groups of blacks and "crack the bloc" in such a way as to give them more power. Now tell me right here and now whether that has racist undertones. If it does not then I have to wonder why you are attacking Republicans for "packing" the bloc.

Half true.

No, completely true.

The Civil War had at least two major aspects to it, with among the most notable being a feeling of disenfrancisment within the South due to the belief that the northern states and their candidates didn't understand or care about the South. This in turn was due in no small part to the radically different economies of the two areas, with the South's being particularly reliant on the use of plantations which had a 'special need' for slave labor.

No. The bigger issue had to do with tariffs that hurt the south. Very few southerners owned slaves. Most southerners had to either import goods from Europe or pay the high prices for northern goods.

(On a tangent, I just took a gander at your profile, and given that it says you're an instructor, I'm very concerned that you're taking such a belligerent attitude towards people you are assuming are less informed than you)

Belligerent? Towards people who talk about "racial undertones" as one would talk about the weather, perhaps. Against my students, never. You do not pay me enough to take your shit.

And yet respect for a person does not equate to treating them as a demigod.

Definition-
Demigod- A person who is highly honored or revered.

...If you feel the need to include profanity in your responses, you really need to step back and let yourself calm down

Fuck.

Personally, I do not care about cursing. I do not do it in formal settings. However, the day I stop cursing in general speech is the day I give up my accent.

Wrong.

Right.

Undertone, synonym- implication.

I have done no such thing. I made no commentary about racial relations in such general terms, I've made no statement about this incident reflecting on a greater whole, heck, I never so much as claimed that those involved were themselves racists. I said that the act had racist undertones, which I've described.

Undertones that apparently exist for no other reason than because you have an opinion.

You have condemned an act as having "racial undertones" when the same goddamn act is done for and against people of all races. YOU have to show how this act is so different. The best you have been able to do is say that it happened on a particular day, which implies that everything would have been fine if it had been done on one of the other 364 days. Or you say that the fact that a Virginian hero is recognized in a Virginian Governmental building is somehow significant. Why is this goddamn incident of gerrymandering so fucking different from every other incident? For the love of Christ can you even answer that?

Racial undertones? Where? They exist only in your head because you made them exist there. Here in the real world, we see another incident of gerrymandering. The same kind of gerrymandering that has occurred for centuries in the US. The "undertones" are in your head. Unless you have some evidence of something else there is nothing else to say.

I'll thank you very much to not try to cow me into silence through attempting to shame me with disingenuous assertions.

I will thank you not to attack people for "racist undertones" when you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

I do not give a shit whether you utilize your right to speak, but you spoke to me. You engaged me in this discussion. You have accused people of something that most on this forum would consider to be a bad thing. You have done so without any proof other than your feelings. Somehow, though all of this, you expect me to take that shit. Sorry, no dice.

Jux:
I could argue till I'm blue in the face that the earth is round, but if you're not willing to accept the evidence, does that mean my debate skills need practice, or just that you're obstinate?

Considering the fact that I am willing to be convinced, your debate skills need practice.

So now you get to decide what's 'true' racism too? Amazing.

Apparently. After all, if you had your way a typical governmental action would be considered racist for no other reason than because you said so. Personally, I think some of the rhetoric used against my family by those Klan fucks is just a smidge more racist than general purpose gerrymandering.

I've seen the face of racism mate, and while having your life threatened over your race may be more personally scary, what makes racism so insidious is its ability to be subtle.

So subtle in fact that you cannot even prove that it exists in this case. You know, the convenient kind of subtle. The kind of subtle that can be wielded against your enemies and they cannot defend against it because it is so subtle.

Seanchaidh:
Yeah, all these states just wanted to declare a right of secession because they didn't like Lincoln's positions on trade with China and railroad subsidies. One can claim it was about other things as well, but it was definitely about slavery. The issue of slavery was the impetus. The war was about the Southern way of life, also known as slavery. The war was about the legitimacy of Southern politics, which were tainted by slavery. The war was about a right to secede from the Union, and the issue which prompted states to want to secede was slavery. The war was about state's rights... to allow their citizens to keep slaves.

So let me get this straight, hundreds of thousands of southerners died in order to protect an institution that they held no part in? Slavery was a very expensive institution and only a tiny portion of southerners could even afford slaves. Also, do you know where, prior to the 1850s, the largest abolitionist group in the US was? In the south. Why did that change? Because northerners started attacking the southerners over the institution (among other things) in such a way that most southern abolitionists circled the wagons. Finally, one wonders that if slavery was so goddamn important then why did so many slave states and territories refuse to leave the union?

Actually, most southerners were extremely angry over Lincoln's position on tariffs, primarily because tariffs were viewed as an attack on the south. The south had little industry and because of that they had to import. That means they either have to pay the tariff on European goods or they have to pay the high price for northern goods.

Vegosiux:

cthulhuspawn82:
I hate how people here try to reject the "Both sides do it" argument. It is an extremely valid argument in this case. You have a group of people who use gerrymandering by Republicans to spout hatred for that party and to garner support for the opposition, who are also guilty of gerrymandering. That's what we call Irony... and ignorance... Ironic ignorance?

So if I break into your house, wreck up the place and make away with all your valuables, all I have to do is point at someone else and say "But they're doing it too!" and suddenly my act becomes acceptable? Or I dunno, if a guy beats his wife, he should get away with saying "But other men do it too!" or something?

Disgusting.

He's saying both parties should be viewed with contempt for immoral actions.

Mr.BadExample:

Vegosiux:

cthulhuspawn82:
I hate how people here try to reject the "Both sides do it" argument. It is an extremely valid argument in this case. You have a group of people who use gerrymandering by Republicans to spout hatred for that party and to garner support for the opposition, who are also guilty of gerrymandering. That's what we call Irony... and ignorance... Ironic ignorance?

So if I break into your house, wreck up the place and make away with all your valuables, all I have to do is point at someone else and say "But they're doing it too!" and suddenly my act becomes acceptable? Or I dunno, if a guy beats his wife, he should get away with saying "But other men do it too!" or something?

Disgusting.

He's saying both parties should be viewed with contempt for immoral actions.

If this was a thread about doing this in general then that might be a fucking relevant line of discussion that should be pointed out and pursued. This is a thread about a specific incident. It's just dumb seeing it. It's like if someone posted the thread "Republican candidate shoots baby this afternoon" and someone starts linking all the times other candidates have shot babies as if it's an argument and people start debating that instead of the OP.

If people want to trot out "NOOOOOO BOTH SIDES DO IT XDDDDDDDDDDDDD" then they should use it in a topic where it's worth something, make a thread about gerrymandering in general so then we can discuss how both sides do it and how both sides have done it.

Not in threads about very specific incidents.

farson135:

Jux:
I could argue till I'm blue in the face that the earth is round, but if you're not willing to accept the evidence, does that mean my debate skills need practice, or just that you're obstinate?

Considering the fact that I am willing to be convinced, your debate skills need practice.

I don't think we could call it an established fact at this point that you're willing to be convinced of anything. Your attitude is pretty much the antithesis of someone open to other ideas.

farson135:

So now you get to decide what's 'true' racism too? Amazing.

Apparently. After all, if you had your way a typical governmental action would be considered racist for no other reason than because you said so. Personally, I think some of the rhetoric used against my family by those Klan fucks is just a smidge more racist than general purpose gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering is a typical government action for you? And no, I don't consider it racist 'because I said so'. I said it had racist undertones, the reasons for which have been explained throughout this thread, time and time again. And if you're going with the argument 'Klan is overtly racist towards me, therefore anything 'less' racist than this isn't racism at all', well, that's not even worth a response mate.

Vegosiux:

cthulhuspawn82:
I hate how people here try to reject the "Both sides do it" argument. It is an extremely valid argument in this case. You have a group of people who use gerrymandering by Republicans to spout hatred for that party and to garner support for the opposition, who are also guilty of gerrymandering. That's what we call Irony... and ignorance... Ironic ignorance?

So if I break into your house, wreck up the place and make away with all your valuables, all I have to do is point at someone else and say "But they're doing it too!" and suddenly my act becomes acceptable? Or I dunno, if a guy beats his wife, he should get away with saying "But other men do it too!" or something?

Disgusting.

I never said that rotten behavior becomes acceptable just because you can point out that others engage in it as well. I said that it shows some level of hypocrisy to berate one group for engaging in an amoral act while carrying the flag for another group who are guilty of the same thing.

In America, most of the people who make derogatory insults against a particular party, are hardcore members of the other party. This makes them hypocrites since both party are largely guilty of the same bad behavior. The big problem here is people making vulgar insults against a major political party rather than just addressing the single issue presented in this post. They are attacking people rather than the actions those people take. Its similar to argumentum ad homenim.

I know we have people posting here from around the world, so let me impart some information on how the American political system works. It is a two party system, fueled by childish antagonism, where the implication is that there is no third option. As such, in our system, an attack on one party functions as support for the other. This is why our parties will spend money on attack ads that don't mention their candidate at all. For example, in the last election, if you said "Don't vote for Obama" that was equivalent to saying "Vote for Romney", whether you meant it to be or not.

TLDR: When people make childish insults like "This shows what a bunch of dumb fucks Republicans are", they are acting as mouthpieces for the other party, who are guilty of the same things.

farson135:

Asita:
You do realize that I never claimed that you said everybody, right? What I did say was that it seemed highly likely that those 'some people' you referred to likely didn't present this detail as the principle point you seem to be interpreting it as.

I say some people. You admit that some people believe it. Yet you accuse me of talking about everyone else but those people. WTF?

I never made that accusation. See, this is exactly what I was talking about when I said you were reading what you wanted people to say into their statements.

farson135:

The day honors a Civil Rights leader and thus is intimately tied to the Civil Rights Movement. That much should be self-evident. The creation of a new racial district also naturally parallels the idea of segregation. That much is merely pattern recognition. It naturally follows that actions which naturally bring to mind segregation have their unfortunate nature especially highlighted when performed on a day honoring anyone who fought to end the practices the act parallels. This is very basic social analysis.

No, it is bullshit analysis. If I tried that shit in my thesis my professor would throw it back in my face. More below.

You calling it bullshit doesn't make it so, and given your willfully beligerent attitude in this topic I'm less than inclined to take you at your word, especially when ultimately you never addressed this point again.

farson135:

...If I may offer some friendly advice, farson? Take a step back, take a few deep breaths, try to emotionally distance yourself from the topic, and then read what you said again. You literally just asked me if I'd call gerrymandering racism if race was not involved

If I may make a suggestion. Take a step back and read what I wrote. Try again-

"Also, Civil Rights leaders create "black districts" as well. They just like to spread them out a little more. Basically instead of creating a district is almost entirely black they split that district in such a way that the majority of the people in the new districts will vote for one group. That is another form of gerrymandering. Do you call that racism?"

In other words, many civil rights leaders split blacks up into several districts. It is called cracking the bloc. It takes a bloc of voters and splits them into groups just large enough to keep a district but small enough so that the bloc will be in as many districts as possible. That is one form of gerrymandering. Many Dems take large groups of blacks and "crack the bloc" in such a way as to give them more power. Now tell me right here and now whether that has racist undertones. If it does not then I have to wonder why you are attacking Republicans for "packing" the bloc.

Oh, is that what you meant? I'm sorry, I thought you meant the act of spliting the block itself into politically favorable segments - without taking race into account - and demanding to know whether I'd consider that racist, effectively asking whether I felt gerrymandering itself was a racist practice. Thank you for the clarification of your intent, because I certainly didn't get that from your original question.

farson135:

Half true.

No, completely true.

Nope. Half. At best. Whether or not it was the largest of the concerns, the opposing views on slavery did play a sizable role in the incident, as made very evident by the recurring disagreements on whether or not to maintain or even expand the institution of slavery in the years leading up to the south's secession, and the increasing power of the Republican party which was explicitly founded as an abolitionist party. And of course, the aforementioned cornerstone speech kinda makes a point of presenting slavery as a fairly important detail.

farson135:

The Civil War had at least two major aspects to it, with among the most notable being a feeling of disenfrancisment within the South due to the belief that the northern states and their candidates didn't understand or care about the South. This in turn was due in no small part to the radically different economies of the two areas, with the South's being particularly reliant on the use of plantations which had a 'special need' for slave labor.

No. The bigger issue had to do with tariffs that hurt the south. Very few southerners owned slaves. Most southerners had to either import goods from Europe or pay the high prices for northern goods.

Most didn't, yes. Estimates put those numbers at around 384,000 slave owners out of a population of 1.6 million free men and women. The same estimates put the number of slaves in the south at the time at around 4 million, with the sizable majority of slave owners owning less than 20. Plantation owners, however, were very important to the south's largely agricultural-based economy, due in no small part to the invention of the Cotton gin. Through the use of slave labor, costs in the production of this were exceptionally low, allowing for the cotton industry to actually provide the bulk of the South's economic growth in the pre-war years via international trade. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it's estimated that roughly half of the slaves in the south worked on such plantations. By contrast, the North was far more industrialized and its economy reflected that by largely being based around factories.

You're right in that tariffs were another contributing issue. Whereas the North wanted to make domestic trade more appealing through the use of tariffs on international trade, the South's economy strongly relied on that same trade the north was trying to make less appealing. Honestly, I figured that was an implicit part of the priorly noted 'radically different economies'. I apologize if my wording seemed to imply that they didn't factor in at all.

Additionally though, many a historian is quick to point out that even though many southerners didn't own slaves, most were aware of how much the South relied on it, a detail perhaps best highlighted by the split of the Democratic party by region due to that very issue, with South Democrats being rather explicitly pro-slavery and North Democrats saying the decision - one way or another - had to be local.

To be perfectly blunt though, if you intend to state that the role of slavery in the South's secession was anywhere from little to none, you don't know the subject as well as you think you do. The various secession ordinances even make a point of identifying the states as 'slaveholding states' and citing the north's opposition to slavery as among the reasons for secession. To quote the South Carolina Ordinance:

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

Yes, there was more to it than just slavery, but all the same it was a major player in the conflict.

farson135:

(On a tangent, I just took a gander at your profile, and given that it says you're an instructor, I'm very concerned that you're taking such a belligerent attitude towards people you are assuming are less informed than you)

Belligerent? Towards people who talk about "racial undertones" as one would talk about the weather, perhaps. Against my students, never. You do not pay me enough to take your shit.

That's a small relief, but not much of one, given that I'd hope that an instructor would have a degree of professionalism - at least initially - when discusing academic topics whether he was in class or not, rather than resorting to insults from the word "go".

farson135:

And yet respect for a person does not equate to treating them as a demigod.

Definition-
Demigod- A person who is highly honored or revered.

Demigod - Noun, literally meaning half-god. Whether the use of the term is used colloquially or mythologically, the term relies on that definition either directly or hyperbolicly. And I believe that you already heavily implied that you were not using the hyperbolic defintion you just cited, given your last response, wherein you noted that - and I quote - "at least one of the days happens to be named after the son of god", making the apparent use of the term in context the more literal definition I was chastising you for apparently using.

farson135:

...If you feel the need to include profanity in your responses, you really need to step back and let yourself calm down

Fuck.

Personally, I do not care about cursing. I do not do it in formal settings. However, the day I stop cursing in general speech is the day I give up my accent.

Well, that was uncalled for. I can - to some extent - understand the use of it in what you term 'general speech' (though I still maintain it indicates that the speaker is too emotionally invested to approach the issue impartially), but that right there was nothing more than you being deliberately contrary.

farson135:

Wrong.

Right.

Undertone, synonym- implication.

Then it would seem we're using different definitions then, wouldn't it?

farson135:

I have done no such thing. I made no commentary about racial relations in such general terms, I've made no statement about this incident reflecting on a greater whole, heck, I never so much as claimed that those involved were themselves racists. I said that the act had racist undertones, which I've described.

Undertones that apparently exist for no other reason than because you have an opinion.

Oh please. I laid out point by point the details that led me to call it such. That is hardly just 'because I have an opinion' whether or not you agree with me. At worst it's an interpretation of events.

farson135:
You have condemned an act as having "racial undertones" when the same goddamn act is done for and against people of all races. YOU have to show how this act is so different. The best you have been able to do is say that it happened on a particular day, which implies that everything would have been fine if it had been done on one of the other 364 days. Or you say that the fact that a Virginian hero is recognized in a Virginian Governmental building is somehow significant. Why is this goddamn incident of gerrymandering so fucking different from every other incident? For the love of Christ can you even answer that?

...I beg you, actually pay attention to what people are saying, please? I never said or even implied that everything would have been fine if it had been done on a different day, I said that this was probably the single worst day to do this as the nature of the day served to further highlight its unfortunate parallels. There's a distinct difference between "being good any other day" and "being worse that day". Though let's review, shall we?

1) The stated intent was the creation of a 'major black district', an intent which by nature draws parallels to segregation.
2) The effect unfortunately parallels the three-fifths compromise, one of the most racist pieces of federal legislation in american history.
3) The invocation of a Confederate General, while innocuous on its own takes a sinister tone when used to honor legislation used to create 'a major black district.
4) All of this occurs on Martin Luther King Day, further highlighting the unfortunate parallels by virtue of how the man the day commemorates is most famous for his work towards racial equality and the ending of segregation.

Again, that the missing senator was a Civil Rights lawyer attending the first black president's second inauguration was icing on the cake. Any of these things on their own are easily less offensive, it's viewing them all in concert that makes the subtext such a faux pas. Honoring Jackson? Fine, he was an interesting guy and a great strategist. Gerrymandering? Nasty business worth condemnation any day of the year (and honestly, trying to game the system like that should be grounds for immediate expulsion), but not unheard of. Creating a major black district? Sketchy, but as you noted they tend to vote democrat these days...Minimizing opposing votes? That's gerrymandering for you...Creating a major black district in a way that draws parallels with the three-fifths compromise then closing the floor by honoring a Confederate General on Martin Luther King day, while the absentee voter - a former civil rights lawyer - was attending the first black president's inauguration? That's pretty much as close to a five-car pileup as these kinds of things ever get.

farson135:
Racial undertones? Where? They exist only in your head because you made them exist there. Here in the real world, we see another incident of gerrymandering. The same kind of gerrymandering that has occurred for centuries in the US. The "undertones" are in your head. Unless you have some evidence of something else there is nothing else to say.

See the above. It's not an individual detail that pushes this over, it's the way the details pile on top of one another. Thanks for the needless condescension though.

farson135:

I'll thank you very much to not try to cow me into silence through attempting to shame me with disingenuous assertions.

I will thank you not to attack people for "racist undertones" when you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

Thank you for proving my point.

farson135:
I do not give a shit whether you utilize your right to speak, but you spoke to me. You engaged me in this discussion. You have accused people of something that most on this forum would consider to be a bad thing. You have done so without any proof other than your feelings. Somehow, though all of this, you expect me to take that shit. Sorry, no dice.

Conversely, I've tried to maintain a respectful tone throughout this (I doubt I entirely succeeded, but I think I did a fair job of it on the whole) - despite your pointed hostility towards myself and others - in the interest of having a civil discussion. Clearly, however, you are more interested in rehearsing your own preconceptions than having such a discussion, as was made glaringly apparent by the manner in which you insulted my presumed lack of knowledge of the Civil War before you even gave me a chance to address the topic, much less allay or confirm your suspicions.

farson135:
Considering the fact that I am willing to be convinced, your debate skills need practice.

The attitude you're bringing to the table makes me sincerely doubt that statement. You are not approaching this as an intellectual subject, you are treating it as if it is morally imperative that you be right. You are being defensive, you are being belligerent in your responses, attempting more to demean the opposition rather than best them via your own argumentative abilities, much less let the arguments speak for themselves, to say nothing of your voiced assumption that anything said in opposition to your statements comes from a position of ignorance. Topping it off, you're taking a particularly immature approach to the discussion via deliberate attempt to spite the opposition, which in turn indicates a certain galvanization of your position. You do not present yourself as someone open to other arguments if they should prove reasonable, you present yourself as someone who is violently protective of the conclusions you've drawn.

Gold:
If this was a thread about doing this in general then that might be a fucking relevant line of discussion that should be pointed out and pursued. This is a thread about a specific incident. It's just dumb seeing it. It's like if someone posted the thread "Republican candidate shoots baby this afternoon" and someone starts linking all the times other candidates have shot babies as if it's an argument and people start debating that instead of the OP.

If people want to trot out "NOOOOOO BOTH SIDES DO IT XDDDDDDDDDDDDD" then they should use it in a topic where it's worth something, make a thread about gerrymandering in general so then we can discuss how both sides do it and how both sides have done it.

Not in threads about very specific incidents.

A "Republican candidate shoots baby" thread would deserve moderator action unless the OP could provide evidence that party affiliation contributed to the candidate's reason for killing a baby (Something besides "REPUBLICUNT KILLS BLACK BABY BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL RACISTS"). It would be like creating a JEW BANKER STEALS COUPLE'S RETIREMENT SAVINGS thread.

There's no point in creating a thread like this and expecting it to stay focused on one event. The OP is needlessly hostile to the Republican party (Not that the act isn't worthy of hostility, but it adds nothing to the discussion) and there's really nothing to talk about other than if the act was racist or not. It's dumb to think that people wouldn't try to widen the dialogue to a more general topic (What gerrymandering is, how big of a problem it might be, which sides practice it, what the solutions are, etc) which the OP should have done in the first place.

Which doesn't matter because I was only commenting on the inaccuracy of the examples given, not the relevance of the "Other Party Does it Too" argument in this thread.

farson135:
So let me get this straight, hundreds of thousands of southerners died in order to protect an institution that they held no part in? Slavery was a very expensive institution and only a tiny portion of southerners could even afford slaves.

The legitimacy of slavery was bound up with white supremacy. The pride of many southerners who did not own slaves was dependent on yet being better than them niggers, and an attack on slavery was an attack on that feeling-- since you seem to want to analyze the motivations of the individual soldier (as if all wars since the GI bill involving the United States were fought over funding for a college education...)

Also, do you know where, prior to the 1850s, the largest abolitionist group in the US was? In the south. Why did that change? Because northerners started attacking the southerners over the institution (among other things) in such a way that most southern abolitionists circled the wagons.

How sympathetic.

Finally, one wonders that if slavery was so goddamn important then why did so many slave states and territories refuse to leave the union?

It's almost as if decisions to openly rebel are slightly more complicated than being on one side of an issue or another. The question is not "do you support slavery", but "do you support slavery enough to want to rebel over its seemingly inevitable abolition?" Of the free states, how many joined the Confederacy? That tells the real story. As does the Confederacy's position to move from a government that allowed some states to be free and others to have slavery (at least for the moment) to one that imposed slavery on each state by federal mandate. The explicit justification for the secession was to protect the institution of slavery. But no: protectionism!

Actually, most southerners were extremely angry over Lincoln's position on tariffs, primarily because tariffs were viewed as an attack on the south. The south had little industry and because of that they had to import. That means they either have to pay the tariff on European goods or they have to pay the high price for northern goods.

At best a secondary issue. You don't rebel over Morrill any more than you rebel over Smoot-Hawley.

This post can totally be read as Appeal to Authority, so I have no expectations that what I'm going to share would mean anything to anyone but me. But I live in Virginia (hopefully not for very much longer!) and I used to be a Republican activist here. I have a friend who I met in those circles who's been heavily involved with the Virginia GOP his whole life. His parents too are ardent Republicans. They're Black. My friend has been successful enough in his activism to be an elector in the Electoral College (a partisan thing you run for when you're well-known enough in state partisan politics). In his day job, he's a professor of political science at a Virginia university. When I first met him in 2000, he was considered "solidly conservative". I watched with dismay as this slowly shifted-- his views (fiscal conservatism, strong on defense but not completely bellicose, pro-life) didn't change, but the people in the party around him did-- and I grew more and more disaffected with the party. I'd left the party in disgust and voted for Obama in 2008, and by then, my friend was considered a "squishy" moderate and once derided for wearing a President Bush pin to a Republican rally-- before the end of his presidency, no less. He had some misgivings about the 2008 race, but told me my fears about Sarah Palin were unfounded, and he affirmed his "always a Republican" stance. He warned higher-ups in the RPV (Republican Party of Virginia) repeatedly that it needed minority outreach (particularly to Latinos) to stay relevant, that shifting demographics in the state would doom the party to minority status if it didn't change its approach.

He has always been, the entire time I've known him, annoyed with the way VA redistricts; he has always thought that drawing districts specifically to favor this or that incumbent is bad for policy, bad for politics, and bad for Virginia. And he should know, this is part of his academic background. But he remained a staunch Republican. He backed Romney, worked for Romney's campaign, ever the loyal soldier. Good guy, always kind and generous, but on political things he couldn't be moved, even if his candidates' stands harmed his friends; being a Republican was too much a part of his core identity.

So I was, in a word, stunned to open Facebook and see his reaction to the subject of this post. He said this decision was plain and outright racism, contemptible, and that he'd be voting Democrat in the next election. Now, none of you know this guy, and for all you know, I could be making this shit up. But it was more than enough to convince *me* how awful this move was-- I really thought, of all the Republicans I'd known when I was one, that this is one person that no matter how contrary to his own interests, would stay with the party no matter what. The comments were awful, too. He was called a RINO, basically called a traitor, told that he was essentially playing the race card. I've never met anyone *less* likely to call racism even when it was obvious and right in front of him; for him to do that was unprecedented, and yet these other Republicans were more interested in feeling themselves ideologically right than trying to keep someone who'd been that loyal and that productive for them. If that's the contempt they've got for their own activists, I can only imagine how they think of the voters.

My prediction? Virginia is unsalvageable for the GOP. They're committed to burning bridges and riding that one older, white male demographic into the ground. It'll get more and more blue as time goes on.

Now I'm half-tempted to open a general "both sides do it" thread, with a disclaimer that you're only allowed to bash your own side in it.

Just so to see who seems to be more willing to admit stuff and who's going to be grasping for straws.

But captcha is telling me to hold my horses.

Jux:
I don't think we could call it an established fact at this point that you're willing to be convinced of anything. Your attitude is pretty much the antithesis of someone open to other ideas.

Really? More feelings?

Just because I cannot be convinced by you does not mean that I cannot be convinced.

Gerrymandering is a typical government action for you?

Can you name a time in American politics when gerrymandering did not exist? Sounds pretty typical to me.

And if you're going with the argument 'Klan is overtly racist towards me, therefore anything 'less' racist than this isn't racism at all', well, that's not even worth a response mate.

Actually my argument was that you are so oversensitive to the idea of racism that you see racism everywhere in very mundane things. The things may be wrong but that does not make them racist.

Asita:
I never made that accusation. See, this is exactly what I was talking about when I said you were reading what you wanted people to say into their statements.

Looks like I am going to have to go back and quote your post again. For the love of Christ why can't you remember your own damn argument-

"With all due respect, I think you need to step back and read what people are actually saying instead of what you want them to have said. Very few people have pointed to this particular detail as a primary point and it's disingenous to act as if they had."

The post you quoted-

"Ok. At you admitted it (unlike some people)."

especially when ultimately you never addressed this point again.

I didn't? Try reading it again. It would not be the first time you missed something (as you admitted).

Oh, is that what you meant? I'm sorry, I thought you meant the act of spliting the block itself into politically favorable segments - without taking race into account - and demanding to know whether I'd consider that racist, effectively asking whether I felt gerrymandering itself was a racist practice. Thank you for the clarification of your intent, because I certainly didn't get that from your original question.

You did not answer the question. Here it is again, do you consider cracking the bloc when the "bloc" is a group of people from a racial group a form of racism or having racial undertones? If not then why is packing the bloc so damn different?

Most didn't, yes. Estimates put those numbers at around 384,000 slave owners out of a population of 1.6 million free men and women.

That is 1.6 million families not people.

Plantation owners, however, were very important to the south's largely agricultural-based economy

Because, as many southerners recognized, their ability to build industry was stunted.

To be perfectly blunt though, if you intend to state that the role of slavery in the South's secession was anywhere from little to none, you don't know the subject as well as you think you do.
.....
Yes, there was more to it than just slavery, but all the same it was a major player in the conflict.

Major in the same way Spanish secession was to the Franco-Prussian War. A factor but overall not an extremely important factor.

rather than resorting to insults from the word "go".

And where are these insults you speak of?

Demigod - Noun, literally meaning half-god. Whether the use of the term is used colloquially or mythologically, the term relies on that definition either directly or hyperbolicly. And I believe that you already heavily implied that you were not using the hyperbolic defintion you just cited, given your last response, wherein you noted that - and I quote - "at least one of the days happens to be named after the son of god", making the apparent use of the term in context the more literal definition I was chastising you for apparently using.

Or, you are making more assumptions.

I actually used two separate edges (and you accuse me of selective editing). One was people who are highly revered in our society and on the other end was the son of God. My statement implies that MLK is somewhere in that area. Whether you are on one edge or the other you are talking about either a demigod or god himself (sort of).

Well, that was uncalled for. I can - to some extent - understand the use of it in what you term 'general speech' (though I still maintain it indicates that the speaker is too emotionally invested to approach the issue impartially), but that right there was nothing more than you being deliberately contrary.

Then it would seem we're using different definitions then, wouldn't it?

Mine is from the thesaurus. Where is yours from?

I never said or even implied that everything would have been fine if it had been done on a different day, I said that this was probably the single worst day to do this as the nature of the day served to further highlight its unfortunate parallels. There's a distinct difference between "being good any other day" and "being worse that day".

You have yet to identify the act itself (gerrymandering) as having racial undertones.

1) The stated intent was the creation of a 'major black district', an intent which by nature draws parallels to segregation.

No it doesn't. There is a big fucking difference between forcing people to live in certain areas and drawing an imaginary line around areas that they happen to live in already.

2) The effect unfortunately parallels the three-fifths compromise, one of the most racist pieces of federal legislation in american history.

No it fucking doesn't. Unless you are arguing that cracking the bloc is the same thing you have no ground to stand on.

3) The invocation of a Confederate General, while innocuous on its own takes a sinister tone when used to honor legislation used to create 'a major black district.

Was it used to honor legislation or the fucking session? The session.

4) All of this occurs on Martin Luther King Day, further highlighting the unfortunate parallels by virtue of how the man the day commemorates is most famous for his work towards racial equality and the ending of segregation.

Fuck it.

Any of these things on their own are easily less offensive, it's viewing them all in concert that makes the subtext such a faux pas.

So in other words it is coincidence that has no bearing on logic or reason. If you take that I can abandon this argument. Quite frankly I have seen far more idiotic lines of reasoning. As long as I see the admission that y'all are speaking about feelings and not about something concrete or even logical then I can leave it be.

Thanks for the needless condescension though.

Needless? What you are describing is a feeling that is not based on logic or reason. There is no logical reason that anyone should see what you see. So it is all in your head.

Conversely, I've tried to maintain a respectful tone throughout this

To me but not to the people you are attacking. I notice that many people choose to forget them.

BTW I have also retained a respectful tone. I have used far more vulgar language to people I truly respect. Have you ever considered that you are making assumptions about what I mean without reading what I am actually saying? You seem to think that fuck should only be used when you are emotional. I do not.

despite your pointed hostility towards myself and others

Have you ever considered that you are just oversensitive?

Clearly, however, you are more interested in rehearsing your own preconceptions than having such a discussion, as was made glaringly apparent by the manner in which you insulted my presumed lack of knowledge of the Civil War before you even gave me a chance to address the topic, much less allay or confirm your suspicions.

Insulted? Or stated the fact that you are probably exactly like 90% of the American population and only know about Jackson and Lee in the vaguest terms?

This is an example of you being oversensitive. Being near of the crest of the bell curve is not an insult. In fact being on either edge of the bell curve is not an insult. So why are you feeling insulted? I gave you an opening from which you should have understood that you do not need to feel bad about not knowing more than that (because you are like the majority of other people) but at the same time, if you knew more than that, you could feel good about knowing more than average.

Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, you have gone into this entire discussion under very poor assumptions and those assumptions have clouded your ability to respond appropriately?

You are not approaching this as an intellectual subject, you are treating it as if it is morally imperative that you be right.

Morally imperative? I ask for facts. You can only present feelings. If all you can give me is feelings then you are fucking wrong.

You do not present yourself as someone open to other arguments if they should prove reasonable, you present yourself as someone who is violently protective of the conclusions you've drawn.

Just because you are wrong does not mean I cannot be convinced. It just means that you are wrong (or you are a bad rhetorician).

Seanchaidh:
The legitimacy of slavery was bound up with white supremacy. The pride of many southerners who did not own slaves was dependent on yet being better than them niggers, and an attack on slavery was an attack on that feeling

Can you prove that? Of course not.

Why in the fuck would most southerners care so much about people they have likely never met? Most of these guys are poor farmers who have likely never seen a plantation. You do not gain that much hatred for a group of people you have no contact with and no reason to hate.

Here is one of the most popular patriotic songs from the Civil War. Tell me what you hear-

It's almost as if decisions to openly rebel are slightly more complicated than being on one side of an issue or another. The question is not "do you support slavery", but "do you support slavery enough to want to rebel over its seemingly inevitable abolition?"

Florida had very few slaves while Maryland had a shit ton of slaves. The economy of most of Texas was invested in cattle, and small hold farming. The economy of Maryland was very different.

Of the free states, how many joined the Confederacy? That tells the real story.

No it really doesn't. A huge part of this conflict included familial ties. A person from the deep south probably had few ties with the north. Border states were very different.

farson135:
*

Southerners in their own words:

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

Here's an excerpt from Texas, since you seem to think that Texas didn't give a shit about slavery or white supremacy:

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

Your position is BULLSHIT. (And if the southerners' very own words won't convince you, Asita and Jux are very obviously correct in their assessment of you.)

farson135:

Jux:
I don't think we could call it an established fact at this point that you're willing to be convinced of anything. Your attitude is pretty much the antithesis of someone open to other ideas.

Really? More feelings?

Not at all, just making some observations, and drawing conclusions from them. By your own admission, you don't even think I am arguing my point from a position of good faith:

farson135:
Let me put it to you simply, your argument is bullshit and you know it.

If you don't think the person you are arguing with believes their own position, how could you possibly be expected to be convinced that my position is the correct one? Between that and the needlessly belligerent attitude you are taking, I arrived at the conclusion that you are not actually open to others' ideas.

farson135:

Gerrymandering is a typical government action for you?

Can you name a time in American politics when gerrymandering did not exist? Sounds pretty typical to me.

Just because it has always existed doesn't mean its typical in my eyes. Would you consider genocide to be a typical act of the human race? I mean, we've been doing it to each other for a long time. Would that make genocide a typical behavior of humans?

farson135:
Actually my argument was that you are so oversensitive to the idea of racism that you see racism everywhere in very mundane things. The things may be wrong but that does not make them racist.

Seeing as how your information on me is very limited, I'm not sure how you can arrive at the conclusion that I am oversensitive to racism. Let's not forget that there is a difference between overt racism and racist undertones. If you can't distinguish between the two, I don't see how we can progess in this debate.

farson135:

Asita:
I never made that accusation. See, this is exactly what I was talking about when I said you were reading what you wanted people to say into their statements.

Looks like I am going to have to go back and quote your post again. For the love of Christ why can't you remember your own damn argument-

"With all due respect, I think you need to step back and read what people are actually saying instead of what you want them to have said. Very few people have pointed to this particular detail as a primary point and it's disingenous to act as if they had."

The post you quoted-

"Ok. At you admitted it (unlike some people)."

That doesn't translate into an implication that you claimed 'everyone' or 'everyone but x' said something. It's a statement that you're overemphasizing a point's importance. Again, you're reading what you want to see into your opponents' arguments rather than what they're actually saying.

farson135:

especially when ultimately you never addressed this point again.

I didn't? Try reading it again. It would not be the first time you missed something (as you admitted).

If you think I missed something, feel free to point to it instead of simply asking me to reread your post.

farson135:

Oh, is that what you meant? I'm sorry, I thought you meant the act of spliting the block itself into politically favorable segments - without taking race into account - and demanding to know whether I'd consider that racist, effectively asking whether I felt gerrymandering itself was a racist practice. Thank you for the clarification of your intent, because I certainly didn't get that from your original question.

You did not answer the question. Here it is again, do you consider cracking the bloc when the "bloc" is a group of people from a racial group a form of racism or having racial undertones? If not then why is packing the bloc so damn different?

...You mean besides the way that - given the criteria you seem to be implying - the two naturally draw comparisons to integration and segregation respectively?

farson135:

To be perfectly blunt though, if you intend to state that the role of slavery in the South's secession was anywhere from little to none, you don't know the subject as well as you think you do.
.....
Yes, there was more to it than just slavery, but all the same it was a major player in the conflict.

Major in the same way Spanish secession was to the Franco-Prussian War. A factor but overall not an extremely important factor.

Important enough that the secession ordinances specified it as among the principle reasons for their secession, important enough that the Vice President of the Confederacy listed it as a core value for the South, important enough to have been a major cause of strife between the North and South for upwards of a decade before the war, important enough to divide the Democratic party in a way that paralleled the Mason-Dixon Line...this is not an incidental detail.

farson135:

rather than resorting to insults from the word "go".

And where are these insults you speak of?

Well, in fairness, 'from the word go' was definitely unfair on my part and I apologize for that, though I did find your various "that's bullshit and you know it" claims to be unwarranted, to say nothing of your rather overt slights towards what you assumed I knew about various topics, which I elaborated on earlier.

farson135:

Demigod - Noun, literally meaning half-god. Whether the use of the term is used colloquially or mythologically, the term relies on that definition either directly or hyperbolicly. And I believe that you already heavily implied that you were not using the hyperbolic defintion you just cited, given your last response, wherein you noted that - and I quote - "at least one of the days happens to be named after the son of god", making the apparent use of the term in context the more literal definition I was chastising you for apparently using.

Or, you are making more assumptions.

I actually used two separate edges (and you accuse me of selective editing). One was people who are highly revered in our society and on the other end was the son of God. My statement implies that MLK is somewhere in that area. Whether you are on one edge or the other you are talking about either a demigod or god himself (sort of).

If that was your intent, I'd have to say that you presented it especially poorly, as without defining the differences between the categories you're now claiming you intended to imply the statement read very much like you meant they were all considered on-par with the single entry you elaborated on, a literal demi-god.

farson135:

Well, that was uncalled for. I can - to some extent - understand the use of it in what you term 'general speech' (though I still maintain it indicates that the speaker is too emotionally invested to approach the issue impartially), but that right there was nothing more than you being deliberately contrary.

...And this in the same post where you asked me to point to insults from you?

farson135:

Then it would seem we're using different definitions then, wouldn't it?

Mine is from the thesaurus. Where is yours from?

The Dictionary. The definition in question: "an underlying quality or element; undercurrent"

farson135:

I never said or even implied that everything would have been fine if it had been done on a different day, I said that this was probably the single worst day to do this as the nature of the day served to further highlight its unfortunate parallels. There's a distinct difference between "being good any other day" and "being worse that day".

You have yet to identify the act itself (gerrymandering) as having racial undertones.

I never said that gerrymandering itself was racist. I said the effects in this case drew parallels to racist acts of the past.

farson135:

1) The stated intent was the creation of a 'major black district', an intent which by nature draws parallels to segregation.

No it doesn't. There is a big fucking difference between forcing people to live in certain areas and drawing an imaginary line around areas that they happen to live in already.

The fact that race is being used as a line at all necessarily brings the practice to mind. That's distinct from the practice making a resurgence, which you seem to be implying as my meaning here.

farson135:

2) The effect unfortunately parallels the three-fifths compromise, one of the most racist pieces of federal legislation in american history.

No it fucking doesn't. Unless you are arguing that cracking the bloc is the same thing you have no ground to stand on.

Uh, yes it does. This is the fun math detail I was referring to earlier. The acts thems

farson135:

3) The invocation of a Confederate General, while innocuous on its own takes a sinister tone when used to honor legislation used to create 'a major black district.

Was it used to honor legislation or the fucking session? The session.

Given that the session was conviened specifically to push this legislation through? Same difference.

farson135:

4) All of this occurs on Martin Luther King Day, further highlighting the unfortunate parallels by virtue of how the man the day commemorates is most famous for his work towards racial equality and the ending of segregation.

Fuck it.

Again, uncalled for.

farson135:

Any of these things on their own are easily less offensive, it's viewing them all in concert that makes the subtext such a faux pas.

So in other words it is coincidence that has no bearing on logic or reason. If you take that I can abandon this argument. Quite frankly I have seen far more idiotic lines of reasoning. As long as I see the admission that y'all are speaking about feelings and not about something concrete or even logical then I can leave it be.

...How on earth did you get that interpretation out of what essentially translates to 'the details compound on one another'?

farson135:

Thanks for the needless condescension though.

Needless? What you are describing is a feeling that is not based on logic or reason. There is no logical reason that anyone should see what you see. So it is all in your head.

...I identified the various points, described what they naturally draw comparisons with this particular implementation, and how they compound upon one another.

farson135:

Conversely, I've tried to maintain a respectful tone throughout this

To me but not to the people you are attacking. I notice that many people choose to forget them.

I'm attacking nobody. That's what you aren't getting. I'm describing how the way that the act draws unfortunate social parallels. I'm not saying that they're racists, I'm saying they unwittingly created a PR nightmare for themselves by failing to account for the context the acts occured in.

farson135:
BTW I have also retained a respectful tone. I have used far more vulgar language to people I truly respect. Have you ever considered that you are making assumptions about what I mean without reading what I am actually saying? You seem to think that fuck should only be used when you are emotional. I do not.

I suppose that is possible, and it's certainly is difficult to discern tone in text. That said, you've given me very little reason to assume anything but a disrespectful tone.

farson135:

despite your pointed hostility towards myself and others

Have you ever considered that you are just oversensitive?

I did. I also considered the possibility that you're trying to have your cake and eat it too, and/or are unaware of how your speech comes off. The latter simply seems more plausible when you openly display contempt for the people you talk to.

farson135:

Clearly, however, you are more interested in rehearsing your own preconceptions than having such a discussion, as was made glaringly apparent by the manner in which you insulted my presumed lack of knowledge of the Civil War before you even gave me a chance to address the topic, much less allay or confirm your suspicions.

Insulted? Or stated the fact that you are probably exactly like 90% of the American population and only know about Jackson and Lee in the vaguest terms?

This is an example of you being oversensitive. Being near of the crest of the bell curve is not an insult. In fact being on either edge of the bell curve is not an insult. So why are you feeling insulted? I gave you an opening from which you should have understood that you do not need to feel bad about not knowing more than that (because you are like the majority of other people) but at the same time, if you knew more than that, you could feel good about knowing more than average.

Oh please, enough with the airs. Even when you're trying to placate me you manage to do so in a condescending manner. You didn't just assume I was ignorant, you used that assumption as an argument while trying to assert personal superiority. In fact, you're still doing that.

farson135:
Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, you have gone into this entire discussion under very poor assumptions and those assumptions have clouded your ability to respond appropriately?

Have you perhaps ever heard of the old idiom of the pot calling the kettle black?

farson135:

You are not approaching this as an intellectual subject, you are treating it as if it is morally imperative that you be right.

Morally imperative? I ask for facts. You can only present feelings. If all you can give me is feelings then you are fucking wrong.

I seriously begin to question your understanding of the two terms or even the nature of what I'm saying if you consider to call what I presented such.

farson135:

You do not present yourself as someone open to other arguments if they should prove reasonable, you present yourself as someone who is violently protective of the conclusions you've drawn.

Just because you are wrong does not mean I cannot be convinced. It just means that you are wrong (or you are a bad rhetorician).

I never made reference to my arguments or your reaction to them. I made reference to the manner in which you present yourself, which rather strongly implies that your position would not change regardless of the arguments you saw. Indeed, you rather neatly demonstrated as much when you continued to insist that slavery's role in the South's secession was minimal, despite being directly shown that the States' own official documents and the Confederacy's own leaders saying it was a significant factor.

On an incidental note: You are, I hope, aware that flat out declaring yourself the victor in any form is considered poor debate form, are you not? It's little more than a lazy attempt at out of hand dismissal. Heck, the very nature of the "I'm right and you're wrong" claims show a spectacular misunderstanding of the nature of debate. You don't argue to convince your opponent. You argue to convince the audience. If you can convince your opponent, good for you, but that's a bonus at best. Truth be told, it's actually mildly amusing that you invoked such a claim while making a personal attack about my skills in rhetoric.

Seanchaidh:
Southerners in their own words

And their own words prove that they believed that slavery was a device from which continued usurpations of their rights would follow.

"They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation."

Here's an excerpt from Texas, since you seem to think that Texas didn't give a shit about slavery or white supremacy

Strawman. I never said anything about the whole state. I said that central Texas did not care. Most of the slave owners in Texas were in east Texas.

Your position is BULLSHIT. (And if the southerners' very own words won't convince you, Asita and Jux are very obviously correct in their assessment of you.)

Have you ever considered that your position is far too simplistic? Try it.

As I have pointed out, stating that slavery was the principle issue behind the Civil War is like saying that the issue of Spanish Succession was the principle reason behind the Franco-Prussian War. That is far too simplistic an interpretation. Yet, Bismarck stated (officially) that Spanish Succession was THE reason for the war.

Jux:
Just because it has always existed doesn't mean its typical in my eyes. Would you consider genocide to be a typical act of the human race? I mean, we've been doing it to each other for a long time. Would that make genocide a typical behavior of humans?

You compare an act that is performed every few years across a very large country with an act that is performed very rarely across the entire planet. That sounds fair.

Asita:
That doesn't translate into an implication that you claimed 'everyone' or 'everyone but x' said something. It's a statement that you're overemphasizing a point's importance. Again, you're reading what you want to see into your opponents' arguments rather than what they're actually saying.

Let's cut the bullshit. You know damn well that your point was faulty from the get-go and you never should have said it. Stop and just admit that you were wrong to say it.

If you think I missed something, feel free to point to it instead of simply asking me to reread your post.

To be frank I am sick and fucking tired of having to quote my own damn post because you are not paying attention. Fuck it-

""Also, Civil Rights leaders create "black districts" as well. They just like to spread them out a little more. Basically instead of creating a district is almost entirely black they split that district in such a way that the majority of the people in the new districts will vote for one group. That is another form of gerrymandering. Do you call that racism?"
In other words, many civil rights leaders split blacks up into several districts. It is called cracking the bloc. It takes a bloc of voters and splits them into groups just large enough to keep a district but small enough so that the bloc will be in as many districts as possible. That is one form of gerrymandering. Many Dems take large groups of blacks and "crack the bloc" in such a way as to give them more power. Now tell me right here and now whether that has racist undertones. If it does not then I have to wonder why you are attacking Republicans for "packing" the bloc."

Important enough that the secession ordinances specified it as among the principle reasons for their secession, important enough that the Vice President of the Confederacy listed it as a core value for the South

And Bismarck talked about the issues behind Spanish succession as the principle reason for the Franco-Prussian War. Yet we see how much he cared about that when the French lost.

important enough to have been a major cause of strife between the North and South for upwards of a decade before the war

And what caused the strife exactly? The attacks. Most southern abolitionists dropped their cause and circled the wagons because of the attacks on the south itself.

If that was your intent, I'd have to say that you presented it especially poorly, as without defining the differences between the categories you're now claiming you intended to imply the statement read very much like you meant they were all considered on-par with the single entry you elaborated on, a literal demi-god.

Did I present it poorly or did you not pay attention?

I notice that you are quite willing to attack me for being at fault when all of the information you needed to figure out what I was saying was right there. Maybe you should look to yourself before you attack me.

I provided two parts as an example. YOU assumed that I was talking solely about one of those parts and you ignored the other part as a factor. Do not try and pawn your mistakes off on me.

...And this in the same post where you asked me to point to insults from you?

And that is an insult how?

The Dictionary. The definition in question: "an underlying quality or element; undercurrent"

Considering we were talking about synonyms your point is irrelevant.

The fact that race is being used as a line at all necessarily brings the practice to mind.

Necessarily? No. You have yet to prove that race is anything but incidental. Blacks as a group tend to vote for Democrats. Can you prove that the fact that they are black is more important than the fact that they vote for Dems is more important? Of course not. So no necessity.

Given that the session was conviened specifically to push this legislation through? Same difference.

Not the same.

Again, uncalled for.

Fully called for.

...How on earth did you get that interpretation out of what essentially translates to 'the details compound on one another'?

Your statement is based on irrelevant coincidences that have nothing to do with logic or reason. You have a feeling that there is something bad. You have no proof than anything is going on.

I'm attacking nobody. That's what you aren't getting. I'm describing how the way that the act draws unfortunate social parallels. I'm not saying that they're racists, I'm saying they unwittingly created a PR nightmare for themselves by failing to account for the context the acts occured in.

Drawing parallels between a horrendous crime in history and a mundane act is not attacking? So should I not take offense when Blablahb tell me that my going out to shoot clays is the equivalent of me training to hunt down blacks KKK style?

I suppose that is possible, and it's certainly is difficult to discern tone in text. That said, you've given me very little reason to assume anything but a disrespectful tone.

Because you have made the very poor assumption that I think about speech like you do. Cursing is natural to me. Haven't you ever heard the joke about Texan English? What is the first thing you do when teaching English in Texas? You teach the kids how to make a declarative sentence without the word shit in it.

I did. I also considered the possibility that you're trying to have your cake and eat it too, and/or are unaware of how your speech comes off. The latter simply seems more plausible when you openly display contempt for the people you talk to.

Tell me, how am I supposed to know how my speech comes off when I know nothing about you? And how are you to know how your speech comes off to me?

These kinds of problems are why I am a relativist. Ethnocentrism always did seem rather irrational. Perhaps you should consider coming over to my side.

Oh please, enough with the airs. Even when you're trying to placate me you manage to do so in a condescending manner. You didn't just assume I was ignorant, you used that assumption as an argument while trying to assert personal superiority. In fact, you're still doing that.

Tell me, why is it so goddamn important for you to know something about Jackson? I am a historian and I understand the fact that practically speaking my profession does not need to exist. Most people have no real use for knowing their history. So even if I did know more than you about Jackson why should you feel insulted? Not everybody can know everything. What, is your very existence wrapped up in understanding who Jackson is? If someone knows more than you about Jackson do you feel your life meaningless? No? Then perhaps you should not get so wrapped up in such little things.

I made reference to the manner in which you present yourself, which rather strongly implies that your position would not change regardless of the arguments you saw.

Perhaps I should say the same about you. No, I would not stoop to that.

Indeed, you rather neatly demonstrated as much when you continued to insist that slavery's role in the South's secession was minimal, despite being directly shown that the States' own official documents and the Confederacy's own leaders saying it was a significant factor.

So by your statement the issue of Spanish Succession was THE principle issue behind the Franco-Prussian War. Can you prove that?

You are, I hope, aware that flat out declaring yourself the victor in any form is considered poor debate form, are you not?

Did I call myself the victor? You know what is rather poor debate form? Making shit up.

Looks like you are about done. After all, you have stooped to the level of pretending that I said something that I did not. Auf Wiedersehen.

farson135:
-snip-

My point being that it is generally considered to be atypical. Yes, it happens, no I don't consider it typical. Government collecting taxes is a typical action. Government legislating bills is typical. These are things that a government is designed to do, they are characteristic traits. Gerrymandering is not.

Since you didn't address the other half of my post, am I to assume you concede that you are not actually open to changing your mind?

farson135:

Asita:
That doesn't translate into an implication that you claimed 'everyone' or 'everyone but x' said something. It's a statement that you're overemphasizing a point's importance. Again, you're reading what you want to see into your opponents' arguments rather than what they're actually saying.

Let's cut the bullshit. You know damn well that your point was faulty from the get-go and you never should have said it. Stop and just admit that you were wrong to say it.

I will not admit to acts that I have not committed. Your continued misinterpretation of my claims is not an indication that the claims were flawed. That you continue to insist upon that misinterpretation after being told it is such without so much as trying to glean a better understanding of the statements' intent is your failing, and I will not apologize for your actions.

farson135:

If you think I missed something, feel free to point to it instead of simply asking me to reread your post.

To be frank I am sick and fucking tired of having to quote my own damn post because you are not paying attention. Fuck it-

""Also, Civil Rights leaders create "black districts" as well. They just like to spread them out a little more. Basically instead of creating a district is almost entirely black they split that district in such a way that the majority of the people in the new districts will vote for one group. That is another form of gerrymandering. Do you call that racism?"
In other words, many civil rights leaders split blacks up into several districts. It is called cracking the bloc. It takes a bloc of voters and splits them into groups just large enough to keep a district but small enough so that the bloc will be in as many districts as possible. That is one form of gerrymandering. Many Dems take large groups of blacks and "crack the bloc" in such a way as to give them more power. Now tell me right here and now whether that has racist undertones. If it does not then I have to wonder why you are attacking Republicans for "packing" the bloc."

That does not refer to the point I said you never addressed. What I said you never addressed was the social aspect of the act and the parallels it draws by virtue of its methodology, which you decried as 'bullshit' and indicated that you'd elaborate on later, despite that ultimately being the last mention you made of it, leaving the claim unsubstantiated.

farson135:

Important enough that the secession ordinances specified it as among the principle reasons for their secession, important enough that the Vice President of the Confederacy listed it as a core value for the South

And Bismarck talked about the issues behind Spanish succession as the principle reason for the Franco-Prussian War. Yet we see how much he cared about that when the French lost.

That argument would only hold weight if I'd only used Stevens as support, which I most certainly didn't do. I cited him as one example among many others. To be perfectly frank, it is intellectually dishonest to dismiss them individually while ignoring the greater trend they were a part of.

farson135:

important enough to have been a major cause of strife between the North and South for upwards of a decade before the war

And what caused the strife exactly? The attacks. Most southern abolitionists dropped their cause and circled the wagons because of the attacks on the south itself.

And what attacks would you be referring to, exactly?

farson135:

If that was your intent, I'd have to say that you presented it especially poorly, as without defining the differences between the categories you're now claiming you intended to imply the statement read very much like you meant they were all considered on-par with the single entry you elaborated on, a literal demi-god.

Did I present it poorly or did you not pay attention?

I notice that you are quite willing to attack me for being at fault when all of the information you needed to figure out what I was saying was right there. Maybe you should look to yourself before you attack me.

Again, pot, kettle. You are guilty of the same flaw you accuse me of, and frankly, given that I have been perfectly willing to accept your clarifications and redact statements I felt were unfair on my part, I think that it's not unfair to say that the criticism arguably applies to you better than it does to me. By all appearances you haven't so much as humored the idea that anything you said could have been either mistaken in premise or prone to misinterpretation. Heck, even when I did indicate your statements were prone to misinterpretation I made a point of explaining exactly why I drew the conclusions I did, which is more than I can say for your claims of other peoples' deficiencies.

farson135:
I provided two parts as an example. YOU assumed that I was talking solely about one of those parts and you ignored the other part as a factor. Do not try and pawn your mistakes off on me.

Right back at you, farson.

farson135:

...And this in the same post where you asked me to point to insults from you?

And that is an insult how?

...To be blunt, you aren't as clever as you think you are. Let's see here...you have the general flippancy of the response, the obvious 'rose tinted glasses' statement of the strip itself which makes a very unsubtle comment of being unable to see reality as it is, the "Anarchy in your head" title, the punchline about wanting to blow the guy's brains out. And then of course you try to downplay it to avoid owning up to the obvious implications in as many words...

farson135:

The Dictionary. The definition in question: "an underlying quality or element; undercurrent"

Considering we were talking about synonyms your point is irrelevant.

We aren't talking about synonyms though. I had said - and I quote - that we were apparently working off of different definitions. Heck, you cited your use of a thesaurus in response to that statement.

farson135:

The fact that race is being used as a line at all necessarily brings the practice to mind.

Necessarily? No. You have yet to prove that race is anything but incidental. Blacks as a group tend to vote for Democrats. Can you prove that the fact that they are black is more important than the fact that they vote for Dems is more important? Of course not. So no necessity.

Actually, yes it is. First of all, the phrase in question was 'necessarily brings the practice to mind', which is a modal statement applied to an expected train of thought. Any practice that makes a point of distinguishing by race brings racism to mind by its very nature. Therefore it follows that this practice which makes a point of using race in its justification does the same thing. I don't have to prove it was 'anything but incidental' because that was never the point of that statement.

farson135:

Given that the session was conviened specifically to push this legislation through? Same difference.

Not the same.

Present your counterargument then. The session was specially convened for the specific purpose of passing this legislation, thus the legislation and the session are - by nature - tightly interwoven to the point that the two can be considered to hold the same significance.

farson135:

Again, uncalled for.

Fully called for.

Amusingly enough, you're proving my point about intent by insisting on it being 'called for'.

farson135:

...How on earth did you get that interpretation out of what essentially translates to 'the details compound on one another'?

Your statement is based on irrelevant coincidences that have nothing to do with logic or reason. You have a feeling that there is something bad. You have no proof than anything is going on.

You really are dead-set in your presumptions about me, aren't you?

farson135:

I'm attacking nobody. That's what you aren't getting. I'm describing how the way that the act draws unfortunate social parallels. I'm not saying that they're racists, I'm saying they unwittingly created a PR nightmare for themselves by failing to account for the context the acts occured in.

Drawing parallels between a horrendous crime in history and a mundane act is not attacking? So should I not take offense when Blablahb tell me that my going out to shoot clays is the equivalent of me training to hunt down blacks KKK style?

Apples to oranges, farson. Your example and my statements are not comparable. Unlike in your example I never cast blame, I never made accusations and I never made claims about the people involved. I simply noted the way the context of the act created an unfortunate picture.

farson135:

I suppose that is possible, and it's certainly is difficult to discern tone in text. That said, you've given me very little reason to assume anything but a disrespectful tone.

Because you have made the very poor assumption that I think about speech like you do. Cursing is natural to me. Haven't you ever heard the joke about Texan English? What is the first thing you do when teaching English in Texas? You teach the kids how to make a declarative sentence without the word shit in it.

You know, I MIGHT have accepted that argument if you hadn't made a point of using curses in isolation and insisting upon their use as 'called for' (in this same post no less) when I commented on them rather than justifying them as little more than a turn of phrase to you. I would even have accepted it if your response to my comment had been that I needed to 'lighten up', but instead you both made a point of using them specifically because I commented on them before belying their intent in those contexts as being for the sole purpose of using them antagonistically.

farson135:

I did. I also considered the possibility that you're trying to have your cake and eat it too, and/or are unaware of how your speech comes off. The latter simply seems more plausible when you openly display contempt for the people you talk to.

Tell me, how am I supposed to know how my speech comes off when I know nothing about you? And how are you to know how your speech comes off to me?

Paying attention to people's reactions tends to help.

farson135:
These kinds of problems are why I am a relativist. Ethnocentrism always did seem rather irrational. Perhaps you should consider coming over to my side.

I'll give you points for the attempt at a trap (trying to associate denial of your offer with ethnocentrism), but I have to take points for the hamhandedness of it. Suffice to say though, I see little reason to agree with your continued misrepresentation of my points.

farson135:

Oh please, enough with the airs. Even when you're trying to placate me you manage to do so in a condescending manner. You didn't just assume I was ignorant, you used that assumption as an argument while trying to assert personal superiority. In fact, you're still doing that.

Tell me, why is it so goddamn important for you to know something about Jackson? I am a historian and I understand the fact that practically speaking my profession does not need to exist. Most people have no real use for knowing their history. So even if I did know more than you about Jackson why should you feel insulted? Not everybody can know everything. What, is your very existence wrapped up in understanding who Jackson is? If someone knows more than you about Jackson do you feel your life meaningless? No? Then perhaps you should not get so wrapped up in such little things.

It's not the knowledge itself that gets my goat. The part that irks me is the hubris you brought to the table based off your presumed superior knowledge. What annoyed me was that you were so self-assured that you felt content to call people ignorant before even bothering to ask how much about a given topic they knew, which I consider an unforgivable trait in anyone who identifies as an instructor. What ticked me off was that tried to use an unconfirmed belief in superior knowledge not to educate people but to talk down to them, an annoyance that was only exacerbated when you continued to display this trait even towards sourced statements regarding the topic. I'm perfectly happy to meet people who know more than me on a given topic, I'm significantly less happy to meet people who are so pompous as to use their perceived knowledge as an excuse to belittle people and/or try to argue a point based on that perception.

farson135:

I made reference to the manner in which you present yourself, which rather strongly implies that your position would not change regardless of the arguments you saw.

Perhaps I should say the same about you. No, I would not stoop to that.

You already did. Both in this statement and your original response to me. Again, you aren't as subtle as you seem to think you are.

farson135:

Indeed, you rather neatly demonstrated as much when you continued to insist that slavery's role in the South's secession was minimal, despite being directly shown that the States' own official documents and the Confederacy's own leaders saying it was a significant factor.

So by your statement the issue of Spanish Succession was THE principle issue behind the Franco-Prussian War. Can you prove that?

My arguments did not suggest that. Point of fact, you actually drew the comparison by picking out a single point of my argument and then acting like the rest was never mentioned, effectively cherry picking my argument to force the comparison.

farson135:

You are, I hope, aware that flat out declaring yourself the victor in any form is considered poor debate form, are you not?

Did I call myself the victor? You know what is rather poor debate form? Making shit up.

Declaring your opposition to be 'wrong' is a variant of the technique, especially in the form of "You're wrong and you know it", which you've invoked multiple times throughout the course of this thread. There's a reason I ended the statement with "In any form", you know.

farson135:
Looks like you are about done. After all, you have stooped to the level of pretending that I said something that I did not. Auf Wiedersehen.

I did nothing of the sort. You simply didn't catch my meaning. I'm happy enough to end this back and forth though.

Jux:
My point being that it is generally considered to be atypical. Yes, it happens, no I don't consider it typical. Government collecting taxes is a typical action. Government legislating bills is typical. These are things that a government is designed to do, they are characteristic traits. Gerrymandering is not.

So you are trying to argue that common actions that result from the structure of a government are not characteristic of that government?

Since you didn't address the other half of my post, am I to assume you concede that you are not actually open to changing your mind?

Hardly. You did not make a point worth talking about. Therefore I did not say anything.

Asita:
I will not admit to acts that I have not committed. Your continued misinterpretation of my claims is not an indication that the claims were flawed. That you continue to insist upon that misinterpretation after being told it is such without so much as trying to glean a better understanding of the statements' intent is your failing, and I will not apologize for your actions.

No, this is your failing. You claimed that I was wrong in speaking about a problem that some people had. You claimed that I was not speaking about them even though you admitted those people exist. Stop fucking around.

That does not refer to the point I said you never addressed. What I said you never addressed was the social aspect of the act and the parallels it draws by virtue of its methodology, which you decried as 'bullshit' and indicated that you'd elaborate on later, despite that ultimately being the last mention you made of it, leaving the claim unsubstantiated.

Do I really have to hold your hand every step of the way?

You called the act of gerrymandering a social issue. We have a different kind of gerrymandering that you do not consider to be a problem in the same way as the other form despite the fact that both forms are doing the same thing.

That argument would only hold weight if I'd only used Stevens as support, which I most certainly didn't do. I cited him as one example among many others. To be perfectly frank, it is intellectually dishonest to dismiss them individually while ignoring the greater trend they were a part of.

Many? Try few.

If I came to you and told you that the reason that the last king of Rome was deposed because of the rape of Lucretia what would you say? If you knew what the fuck you were talking about you would say that, yes that is the official Roman history but the plebs would not give a shit about some noble woman being raped. Roman history is usually written from the perspective of the nobility.

Once again, you are talking about the issues of the few and not of the many. There is a reason I used that song two posts ago. The common people will not fight to the death over slavery the same way the plebs would not fight over Lucretia. Your analysis is too simplistic and it only factors in the views of some of the elites and not of the people who fought the damn war.

And what attacks would you be referring to, exactly?

Do I really need to start showing you anti-southern propaganda? Are you just trying to waste my time or do you really not know that it exists?

By all appearances you haven't so much as humored the idea that anything you said could have been either mistaken in premise or prone to misinterpretation.

Because you have yet to show any need for such a consideration.

...To be blunt, you aren't as clever as you think you are.

Apparently I am cleverer than you realize. After all, you have misinterpreted what I said on multiple occasions.

Let's see here...you have the general flippancy of the response

Which is an insult? Since when?

the obvious 'rose tinted glasses' statement of the strip itself which makes a very unsubtle comment of being unable to see reality as it is, the "Anarchy in your head" title, the punchline about wanting to blow the guy's brains out.

So I make an off handed statement by posting a comic. That statement is obviously, I am a contrarian, so what? YOU decide to read everything BUT that. Amazing.

And then of course you try to downplay it to avoid owning up to the obvious implications in as many words...

Obvious implications? You used the word contrary in reference to me, I posted a comic that included the word contrarian, and you focus on everything BUT that part of the comic. If anything YOU are downplaying the obvious implications. Talk about missing the forest through the trees.

We aren't talking about synonyms though. I had said - and I quote - that we were apparently working off of different definitions. Heck, you cited your use of a thesaurus in response to that statement.

I figured you screwed up since in the response post where you stated "different definitions" I clearly stated synonym. So apparently you just were not paying attention at that point as well.

First of all, the phrase in question was 'necessarily brings the practice to mind', which is a modal statement applied to an expected train of thought. Any practice that makes a point of distinguishing by race brings racism to mind by its very nature. Therefore it follows that this practice which makes a point of using race in its justification does the same thing. I don't have to prove it was 'anything but incidental' because that was never the point of that statement.

Actually you do have to prove it. YOU state that it is necessary to view the issue in that fashion. There is absolutely no reason why it does have to be viewed in that fashion.

You really are dead-set in your presumptions about me, aren't you?

Und du?

Apples to oranges, farson. Your example and my statements are not comparable. Unlike in your example I never cast blame, I never made accusations and I never made claims about the people involved. I simply noted the way the context of the act created an unfortunate picture.

An unfortunate picture that is being used to attack them.

You know, I MIGHT have accepted that argument if you hadn't made a point of using curses in isolation

In isolation? So because I do not cuss in every single sentence my point is false? Or is it because I used phrases like 'fuck it' to indicate that I was tired of that bullshit?

insisting upon their use as 'called for'

I say 'fuck it' when I am conveying the fact that I am tired of your bullshit argument. You claim that it is uncalled for. I claim that it was called for because I AM tired of your bullshit argument.

Seriously, are you not reading my posts in conjunction with what you yourself are saying? You have to read the previous posts as well. You cannot pick up a book in the middle and expect to understand the full story.

instead you both made a point of using them specifically because I commented on them before belying their intent in those contexts as being for the sole purpose of using them antagonistically.

Or you are making more shit up. I cursed what, half a dozen times or more before you even made a post to me. You tell me that I am being emotional. I type fuck in defiance because I am not emotional. You say I am being antagonistic because I was defiant to your questioning my state of mind. Does that sound fair to you? If anything I could argue that you are being antagonistic by your questioning of my state of mind. Personally I would prefer it if you just cut the shit.

I'll give you points for the attempt at a trap (trying to associate denial of your offer with ethnocentrism), but I have to take points for the hamhandedness of it.

Trap? Hardly.

I curse and you make the very poor assumption that I am emotional. From there you use my cursing as proof that I am being antagonistic. Every step of the way you have insisted on identifying my speech from YOUR perspective. That is ethnocentrism. I called on you to come to my side. Instead you decide to tell me to fuck off in your own way. Your choice.

The part that irks me is the hubris you brought to the table based off your presumed superior knowledge.

Did I do that? Or are you making more assumptions? You know, you continue to prove that you are oversensitive.

What annoyed me was that you were so self-assured that you felt content to call people ignorant before even bothering to ask how much about a given topic they knew

Did I do that? No. You are making shit up again.

You already did. Both in this statement and your original response to me. Again, you aren't as subtle as you seem to think you are.

Really? Care to quote where I said that? Of course not. Because I did not say it. You need to stop making shit up.

My arguments did not suggest that. Point of fact, you actually drew the comparison by picking out a single point of my argument and then acting like the rest was never mentioned, effectively cherry picking my argument to force the comparison.

The rest? The entire issue is a parallel. Your only proof is official documents. I have shown a parallel case that you have ignored.

Declaring your opposition to be 'wrong' is a variant of the technique, especially in the form of "You're wrong and you know it", which you've invoked multiple times throughout the course of this thread. There's a reason I ended the statement with "In any form", you know.

Ah I see. So instead of meeting me directly you are going to attack me by stating that I implied something. The same method you used to attack the politicians. You know, you really should not repeat tactics. It makes things so boring.

I have won nothing. That has not stopped you from being wrong. Two separate points.

farson135:

Jux:
My point being that it is generally considered to be atypical. Yes, it happens, no I don't consider it typical. Government collecting taxes is a typical action. Government legislating bills is typical. These are things that a government is designed to do, they are characteristic traits. Gerrymandering is not.

So you are trying to argue that common actions that result from the structure of a government are not characteristic of that government?

Since you didn't address the other half of my post, am I to assume you concede that you are not actually open to changing your mind?

Hardly. You did not make a point worth talking about. Therefore I did not say anything.

I wouldn't call gerrymandering a common action. Also, please indulge me and address what you previously ignored. :)

farson135:

Seanchaidh:
Southerners in their own words

And their own words prove that they believed that slavery was a device from which continued usurpations of their rights would follow.

If that were true, then they would have a choice: remove the device or decide the device was more important than their political union. We know which they chose.

"They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation."

In bold: a complaint about certain ways in which the "property rights" of slave-owners were sometimes ignored.

The two sentences preceding your selection: "The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."

Those are the first two lines. That is how Georgia's document opens. That is what the representatives of Georgia thought so important that they would say it first to summarize their concerns. The people of Georgia are dissolving their political connection with the United States because of numerous causes of complaint with reference to the subject of African slavery. Not protectionism, slavery. Not for the last election cycle, not since Morrill's proposal, for the last decade.

Here's an excerpt from Texas, since you seem to think that Texas didn't give a shit about slavery or white supremacy

Strawman. I never said anything about the whole state. I said that central Texas did not care. Most of the slave owners in Texas were in east Texas.

It is not a 'straw man' to attack your central premise, which is that the South cared more about preventing import tariffs than protecting slavery. You said "most of Texas" did not care about slavery. In which case it is quite odd that the representatives of Texas would draw up a document for referendum listing the maintenance of slavery as of the utmost importance.

Your position is BULLSHIT. (And if the southerners' very own words won't convince you, Asita and Jux are very obviously correct in their assessment of you.)

Have you ever considered that your position is far too simplistic? Try it.

As I have pointed out, stating that slavery was the principle issue behind the Civil War is like saying that the issue of Spanish Succession was the principle reason behind the Franco-Prussian War. That is far too simplistic an interpretation. Yet, Bismarck stated (officially) that Spanish Succession was THE reason for the war.

Bismarck had reasons to be less than forthcoming; that is the nature of realpolitik. He had public relations and diplomatic considerations to think of. Were southern leaders as cunning? Ask yourself why southern leaders would cloak their intent to make sure their markets had no barriers to importation in rhetoric which suggests white supremacy and slavery as necessary and a moral good. Why would they do this? Is it better propaganda to emphasize slavery? Only in the south, which severely undercuts your point. Is it better diplomacy to emphasize slavery? No. Other nations were already outlawing slavery.

In any case, a much better comparison is the Declaration of Independence. It too is a document explaining reasons for dissolving a political association. And it too is honest.

You can see in the Confederate constitution how important slavery was to them: they enshrined it as an individual property right of white men. They did not consider it a matter for states to decide among themselves. They explicitly forbade states from interfering with the right to own black people. Have you ever considered that your position is just Lost Cause revisionist mythology? Try it.

farson135:

Asita:
I will not admit to acts that I have not committed. Your continued misinterpretation of my claims is not an indication that the claims were flawed. That you continue to insist upon that misinterpretation after being told it is such without so much as trying to glean a better understanding of the statements' intent is your failing, and I will not apologize for your actions.

No, this is your failing. You claimed that I was wrong in speaking about a problem that some people had. You claimed that I was not speaking about them even though you admitted those people exist. Stop fucking around.

I never made any such claim. I claimed that you were putting undue weight on a statement, and I have since said as much in as simple terms. I am not behooven to warp my statements to fit your misinterpretations or apologize for your inability to admit that you might have read an unintended meaning into other people's comments.

farson135:

That does not refer to the point I said you never addressed. What I said you never addressed was the social aspect of the act and the parallels it draws by virtue of its methodology, which you decried as 'bullshit' and indicated that you'd elaborate on later, despite that ultimately being the last mention you made of it, leaving the claim unsubstantiated.

Do I really have to hold your hand every step of the way?

You called the act of gerrymandering a social issue. We have a different kind of gerrymandering that you do not consider to be a problem in the same way as the other form despite the fact that both forms are doing the same thing.

Again, I said nothing of the sort. Quite the contrary really. I even made a point of saying how ridiculous I felt your [apparent] assertion that gerrymandering itself be viewed as a social issue was. The social bit in question to which this line of discussion traces itself was your assertion that what I called 'basic social analysis' was "a bullshit analysis", and that 'basic social analysis' explicitly referred to the significance of Martin Luther King day to the Civil Rights Movement. You never elaborated on your rationale and I called you on that.

farson135:

That argument would only hold weight if I'd only used Stevens as support, which I most certainly didn't do. I cited him as one example among many others. To be perfectly frank, it is intellectually dishonest to dismiss them individually while ignoring the greater trend they were a part of.

Many? Try few.

If I came to you and told you that the reason that the last king of Rome was deposed because of the rape of Lucretia what would you say? If you knew what the fuck you were talking about you would say that, yes that is the official Roman history but the plebs would not give a shit about some noble woman being raped. Roman history is usually written from the perspective of the nobility.

If you did that, I'd ask you to back it up the statement, naturally. I believe I acquitted myself fairly well in that regard by citing multiple sources from the time period including the very documents used by the states to declare their independence from the USA. Of course, the nature of that comparison is questionable given that you're asking me to compare 'the official story' to what can be gleaned from independent verification by examining the various documents of the time. As noted by Seanchaidh, the more natural comparison is to the Declaration of Independence which took both similar form and held a similar purpose.

farson135:
Once again, you are talking about the issues of the few and not of the many. There is a reason I used that song two posts ago. The common people will not fight to the death over slavery the same way the plebs would not fight over Lucretia. Your analysis is too simplistic and it only factors in the views of some of the elites and not of the people who fought the damn war.

My analysis acknowledged multiple causes leading to this. Do not confuse my refusal to take part in the historical revisionism required to suggest that slavery was a non-issue or incidental issue in the conflict with a refusal to note the multiple sources of conflict entirely.

farson135:

And what attacks would you be referring to, exactly?

Do I really need to start showing you anti-southern propaganda? Are you just trying to waste my time or do you really not know that it exists?

I am trying to force you to be more specific rather than sticking to vague terms like 'attacks' without any sense of context. That you now define it as propaganda is very helpful though. On an incidental note, thank you for demonstrating the very attitude I noted as taking exception to.

farson135:

By all appearances you haven't so much as humored the idea that anything you said could have been either mistaken in premise or prone to misinterpretation.

Because you have yet to show any need for such a consideration.

Thank you for making my point better than I could ever have hoped to on my own.

farson135:

...To be blunt, you aren't as clever as you think you are.

Apparently I am cleverer than you realize. After all, you have misinterpreted what I said on multiple occasions.

You misinterpreted my statements more than a few times as well. The difference between you and I, in this respect, is that I have acknowledged your clarifications whereas you refuse to give mine any consideration, instead insisting upon the interpretations I told you were not a part of my intent.

farson135:

Let's see here...you have the general flippancy of the response

Which is an insult? Since when?

the obvious 'rose tinted glasses' statement of the strip itself which makes a very unsubtle comment of being unable to see reality as it is, the "Anarchy in your head" title, the punchline about wanting to blow the guy's brains out.

So I make an off handed statement by posting a comic. That statement is obviously, I am a contrarian, so what? YOU decide to read everything BUT that. Amazing.

It's not an unreasonable assumption given that you've made a point of expressing that you view myself and others as ignorant with views contrary to reality, and have said on multiple occasions that you believe the people you're arguing against to 'be wrong and know it', further reinforcing the apparent rose-tinted glasses meaning and the 'blow the guy's brains out' bit would not be an unexpected bit of hyperbole from people experiencing frustration. Seriously, without context to imply your intent, exactly how did you expect people to latch onto the use of a single word within the strip as a reference to a single word invoked in the preceding quote rather than the thrust of the strip itself? That is a pretty oblique intent hiding under multiple more likely interpretations.

Actually, that kinda makes for an interesting parallel to this entire situation, doesn't it? A lack of consideration for the various implications created by an act, which leads to unfortunate interpretations.

farson135:

And then of course you try to downplay it to avoid owning up to the obvious implications in as many words...

Obvious implications? You used the word contrary in reference to me, I posted a comic that included the word contrarian, and you focus on everything BUT that part of the comic. If anything YOU are downplaying the obvious implications. Talk about missing the forest through the trees.

A reference to a single word in the middle of the strip without context for the intent in posting it is not 'obvious'. Quite the opposite, really.

farson135:

We aren't talking about synonyms though. I had said - and I quote - that we were apparently working off of different definitions. Heck, you cited your use of a thesaurus in response to that statement.

I figured you screwed up since in the response post where you stated "different definitions" I clearly stated synonym. So apparently you just were not paying attention at that point as well.

Refusal to humor you in moving the goalposts is not a matter of not paying attention. It is a matter of keeping on target with the debate and not mindlessly letting your opposition lead you into tangents and/or traps. Case in point: Synonyms and Definitions were only ever an issue in this discussion in the sense that they provided context for the way the word 'undertones' were used. The use of one or the other was never as important as the fact that the way we were both using the word was clarified, which I noted as a source of a disconnect between us. We were never discussing synonyms, we were discussing the meaning of a statement.

farson135:

First of all, the phrase in question was 'necessarily brings the practice to mind', which is a modal statement applied to an expected train of thought. Any practice that makes a point of distinguishing by race brings racism to mind by its very nature. Therefore it follows that this practice which makes a point of using race in its justification does the same thing. I don't have to prove it was 'anything but incidental' because that was never the point of that statement.

Actually you do have to prove it. YOU state that it is necessary to view the issue in that fashion. There is absolutely no reason why it does have to be viewed in that fashion.

Incorrect. I said it necessarily brings the practice to mind, that is distinct from being obliged to view it as an instance of that practice. If my face got covered with black ash, that necessarily brings to mind the practice of blackface. That train of thought does not, however, mean I was making use of the practice, that had the intent to make reference to it, or that one must interpret the event in either of those lights. It's simply a logical connection that will inevitably (ie, necessarily) be made. Again, you don't seem to grasp my intent with any of this and you would do well to take a step back and consider the possibility that either you misinterpreted my statement or that I might have ended up presenting it in a way that led you to draw unintended conclusions.

farson135:

Apples to oranges, farson. Your example and my statements are not comparable. Unlike in your example I never cast blame, I never made accusations and I never made claims about the people involved. I simply noted the way the context of the act created an unfortunate picture.

An unfortunate picture that is being used to attack them.

Not by me. I am not accusing them of additional wrongdoing, I am merely noting that the context of the actions lends itself towards certain interpretations regardless of intent.

farson135:

You know, I MIGHT have accepted that argument if you hadn't made a point of using curses in isolation

In isolation? So because I do not cuss in every single sentence my point is false? Or is it because I used phrases like 'fuck it' to indicate that I was tired of that bullshit?

The latter.

farson135:

insisting upon their use as 'called for'

I say 'fuck it' when I am conveying the fact that I am tired of your bullshit argument. You claim that it is uncalled for. I claim that it was called for because I AM tired of your bullshit argument.

Amusingly enough, that is exactly what I was saying that your use of the phrase in that context implied.

farson135:
Seriously, are you not reading my posts in conjunction with what you yourself are saying? You have to read the previous posts as well. You cannot pick up a book in the middle and expect to understand the full story.

Believe me, farson, by all appearances you are at least as guilty of that as you accuse me of being.

farson135:

instead you both made a point of using them specifically because I commented on them before belying their intent in those contexts as being for the sole purpose of using them antagonistically.

Or you are making more shit up. I cursed what, half a dozen times or more before you even made a post to me. You tell me that I am being emotional. I type fuck in defiance because I am not emotional. You say I am being antagonistic because I was defiant to your questioning my state of mind. Does that sound fair to you? If anything I could argue that you are being antagonistic by your questioning of my state of mind. Personally I would prefer it if you just cut the shit.

I say you are being emotional and antagonistic because you insist on belittling people rather than relying on argumentation. That you swear was an added point, but never the crux of the issue and one I felt fine in acknowledging as a non-issue until you used it 'in defiance', as you put it, which painted a very different picture than your claim of it 'just being the way you talked' (to paraphrase).

farson135:

The part that irks me is the hubris you brought to the table based off your presumed superior knowledge.

Did I do that? Or are you making more assumptions? You know, you continue to prove that you are oversensitive.

What annoyed me was that you were so self-assured that you felt content to call people ignorant before even bothering to ask how much about a given topic they knew

Did I do that? No. You are making shit up again.

Yes you did. At the end of your anecdote about Lee: "Let me ask you something, what do you know about Robert E. Lee? Probably the fact that he was a Confederate General. In other words, you probably know about as much about him as you know about Jackson" as an attempted closer to the argument, not even allowing a chance to respond before declaring deficiency in your opposition. This simultaneously takes the form of both belittling your opponent and asserting yourself as a superior in the topic by implicitly calling attention to your own percieved superior knowledge. This in turn is echoed in your repeated 'that's bullshit and you know it' statements. For an added ironic twist, you repeat the exact same pattern here by immediately supplying a 'no' to your question in the apparent hopes of preempting a response. In plainer terms, your use of rhetorical questions to try to cow people rather than as a part of actual rhetoric is a prime example of much of the attitude to which I refer and found so anathema.

farson135:

You already did. Both in this statement and your original response to me. Again, you aren't as subtle as you seem to think you are.

Really? Care to quote where I said that? Of course not. Because I did not say it. You need to stop making shit up.

"Perhaps I should say the same about you. No, I would not stoop to that." This right here is a rather well known rhetorical trick, and a fairly popular way of making a claim and then pretending to be classy by denying that you actually said it. It's known as paralipsis or preteritio, and relies on drawing attention to a claim and suggesting it while seeming to disregard it.

farson135:

My arguments did not suggest that. Point of fact, you actually drew the comparison by picking out a single point of my argument and then acting like the rest was never mentioned, effectively cherry picking my argument to force the comparison.

The rest? The entire issue is a parallel. Your only proof is official documents. I have shown a parallel case that you have ignored.

Your parallel case relied on Argument from Authority via Bismark rather than historical analysis and independent verification. That better parallels my invocation of Stevens' cornerstone speech than my citation of the secession ordinances, to say nothing of the citation of the hot-button political issues preceding the Civil War, or the split of the Democratic Party, to say nothing of the fact that all of these were cited.

farson135:

Declaring your opposition to be 'wrong' is a variant of the technique, especially in the form of "You're wrong and you know it", which you've invoked multiple times throughout the course of this thread. There's a reason I ended the statement with "In any form", you know.

Ah I see. So instead of meeting me directly you are going to attack me by stating that I implied something. The same method you used to attack the politicians. You know, you really should not repeat tactics. It makes things so boring.

I have won nothing. That has not stopped you from being wrong. Two separate points.

Actually, what I'm saying is simply that the use of such statements is a deplorable debate tactic. I passed no value judgement on it other than noting that it is widely considered to be bad form due to the way the expressed belief tries to stifle argument by out of hand dismissal. In this sense there is no effective difference between a person declaring himself the victor or declaring his opposition the loser, as the results and methods are ultimately the same.

And again, I'm not attacking the politicians[1]. The idea that that is my intent is - to borrow your phrasing - entirely in your head. I did not make claims about their intent, I did not make claims about their natures. My entire point had been that it wasn't surprising that this debacle was viewed as a faux pas due to the sheer abundance of details that stacked upon each other to draw some very unfortunate[2] parallels. I no more villified them for that than I would a kid asking a Holocaust survivor where he got the 'cool tattoo', or a man asking a vegetarian he just met (who hadn't identified herself as such) to a steak dinner. That is something I don't think you ever understood about what I was saying. I never claimed the legislators were racists or anything similar. What I was saying was that they were woefully ignorant of the context in which this action took place and the way that context could naturally be interpreted. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I'm using that to make a claim about the legislators. I'm not. I'm simply noting the predictability of the response given the manner in which this gerrymandering took place.

[1] Truth be told, I honestly don't care about them one way or another. Politicians - especially legislators - are largely interchangible to me. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian...I really don't care under most circumstances. The only real exception to that rule is when a given legislative branch gains a 'supermajority' of a given political group, which I view as a universally bad thing regardless of who controls it.
[2] Read: unforseen

Jux:
I wouldn't call gerrymandering a common action.

It happens every few years across this entire country. Sounds pretty common to me.

Also, please indulge me and address what you previously ignored. :)

As I said I did not ignore it. You just did not provide me with anything worth saying.

Such as-

Jux:
Not at all, just making some observations, and drawing conclusions from them. By your own admission, you don't even think I am arguing my point from a position of good faith:

No you are not arguing from good faith. And your observations are meaningless without proof.

If you don't think the person you are arguing with believes their own position, how could you possibly be expected to be convinced that my position is the correct one?

How about convincing me that you actually believe in your position? That would be a good start.

Between that and the needlessly belligerent attitude you are taking

Belligerent how?

I arrived at the conclusion that you are not actually open to others' ideas.

In your opinion but your opinion is not based on fact.

Just because you have not been able to convince me of your position does not mean I cannot be convinced. Do you think I was born with the ideas I have now? Do you think that the first book I ever read on say the Holocaust was "Ordinary Men"? Or do you think that I received a standard American education and then learned about the more logical revisionist school?

Seeing as how your information on me is very limited, I'm not sure how you can arrive at the conclusion that I am oversensitive to racism.

This topic is good evidence.

Let's not forget that there is a difference between overt racism and racist undertones. If you can't distinguish between the two, I don't see how we can progess in this debate.

Considering you are seeing racism in a common governmental act for no other reason than because of coincidence it appears that you are the one who cannot recognize racial undertones.

Seanchaidh:
If that were true, then they would have a choice: remove the device or decide the device was more important than their political union. We know which they chose.

What? Did you even read what I said? More below-

In bold: a complaint about certain ways in which the "property rights" of slave-owners were sometimes ignored.

Property rights. Not property rights of slave owners, property rights.

Once again, the arguments against slavery were considered to be a device from with further usurpations of rights would come.

Those are the first two lines. That is how Georgia's document opens. That is what the representatives of Georgia thought so important that they would say it first to summarize their concerns. The people of Georgia are dissolving their political connection with the United States because of numerous causes of complaint with reference to the subject of African slavery. Not protectionism, slavery. Not for the last election cycle, not since Morrill's proposal, for the last decade.

Which proves what? That slavery was an issue not that it was the principle issue. More below-

It is not a 'straw man' to attack your central premise, which is that the South cared more about preventing import tariffs than protecting slavery.

That is not what you attacked. You made a completely different argument.

You said "most of Texas" did not care about slavery. In which case it is quite odd that the representatives of Texas would draw up a document for referendum listing the maintenance of slavery as of the utmost importance.

Ok apparently you need a Texas history lesson. West Texas at the time of the CW was under the control of the Comanche and the Comanche were generally not slave owners. North Texas and the Panhandle (North and High Plains on the map) was cattleman's country (Dallas got its start that way). The Hill Country (Central Texas) did not get its name due to the absence of hills. The large number of hills and rocky soil meant that most of the farmers in the area were small hold farmers. The coastline was mostly used for fishing (except around Houston). The southern valley did not have many slaves due to the fact that the area was extremely poor. The only area in Texas that had any kind of major slave economy was the Piney Woods Region (East Texas). And in case you do not quite understand the scale we are discussing (also keep in mind that what constitutes each region is vague at best, I think the hill country should have some territory from West Texas on the map and the Piney Woods region should have a bit of the coast)-

image

Slave populations-

image

Bismarck had reasons to be less than forthcoming; that is the nature of realpolitik. He had public relations and diplomatic considerations to think of. Were southern leaders as cunning? Ask yourself why southern leaders would cloak their intent to make sure their markets had no barriers to importation in rhetoric which suggests white supremacy and slavery as necessary and a moral good. Why would they do this? Is it better propaganda to emphasize slavery? Only in the south, which severely undercuts your point. Is it better diplomacy to emphasize slavery? No. Other nations were already outlawing slavery.

You missed it. As I pointed out to someone else, only the elites really cared about slavery. BUT the south needed their support. I showed you that video so that you can hear one of the songs that were sung by Confederates in the field. They talk about liberty and the founders. At the same time the government was pandering to the elites. Standard fare even today.

Have you ever considered that your position is just Lost Cause revisionist mythology? Try it.

Long ago. And I killed that thought after realizing the basic fact that your position is too simplistic.

Asita:
I claimed that you were putting undue weight on a statement, and I have since said as much in as simple terms.

Undue weight on statements that said exactly what I said they said.

I am not behooven to warp my statements to fit your misinterpretations or apologize for your inability to admit that you might have read an unintended meaning into other people's comments.

Back at you. Once again, stop fucking around.

You never elaborated on your rationale and I called you on that.

Actually I did. Several times in fact. You just keep ignoring it.

I believe I acquitted myself fairly well in that regard by citing multiple sources from the time period including the very documents used by the states to declare their independence from the USA.

Once again, that is not ultimate proof of anything as I have shown.

My analysis acknowledged multiple causes leading to this. Do not confuse my refusal to take part in the historical revisionism required to suggest that slavery was a non-issue or incidental issue in the conflict with a refusal to note the multiple sources of conflict entirely.

Strawman. I never said non-issue and you need to STOP.....MAKING.....SHIT......UP.

That you now define it as propaganda is very helpful though.

You really needed me to state that it was propaganda that I was referring to?

On an incidental note, thank you for demonstrating the very attitude I noted as taking exception to.

You mean the kind of attitude where a person acknowledges that you are wasting their time?

It's not an unreasonable assumption given that you've made a point of expressing that you view myself and others as ignorant with views contrary to reality

Ignorant? Care to quote me on that?

As for having views contrary to reality, you have accused me of the very same thing. You are just too "polite" to say it directly.

BTW it is an unreasonable assumption. After all, the obvious point was staring you in the face and you ignored it.

Seriously, without context to imply your intent, exactly how did you expect people to latch onto the use of a single word within the strip as a reference to a single word invoked in the preceding quote rather than the thrust of the strip itself?

How? How about by reading and remembering what you said and then applying it to the comic? The comic is not that fucking long.

That is a pretty oblique intent hiding under multiple more likely interpretations.

Horseshit. You fucked up. And you claim to admit to your mistakes.

A reference to a single word in the middle of the strip without context for the intent in posting it is not 'obvious'. Quite the opposite, really.

Literally obvious. By stating nothing you only have to go on your statement and the comic. How does your statement fit into the comic? This is not that hard. Stop trying to cover up your mistakes.

Refusal to humor you in moving the goalposts is not a matter of not paying attention. It is a matter of keeping on target with the debate and not mindlessly letting your opposition lead you into tangents and/or traps. Case in point: Synonyms and Definitions were only ever an issue in this discussion in the sense that they provided context for the way the word 'undertones' were used. The use of one or the other was never as important as the fact that the way we were both using the word was clarified, which I noted as a source of a disconnect between us. We were never discussing synonyms, we were discussing the meaning of a statement.

Move the goalposts?

Synonym- A word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language

Sounds like I was on the target.

Incorrect. I said it necessarily brings the practice to mind, that is distinct from being obliged to view it as an instance of that practice.

Try rereading my statement. See if you can catch how you have screwed up this time. Also, try opening your mind and THINK about what I am saying. Read for content.

Not by me. I am not accusing them of additional wrongdoing, I am merely noting that the context of the actions lends itself towards certain interpretations regardless of intent.

Even if you view yourself as innocent you are giving credence to those that attack them. And all for nothing.

Amusingly enough, that is exactly what I was saying that your use of the phrase in that context implied.

So I am not allowed to state that I am tired of your bullshit without you stating that I am using my curses antagonistically. THAT is bullshit.

I say you are being emotional and antagonistic because you insist on belittling people rather than relying on argumentation.

Belittling? You mean like attacking my diction and arguing that what I say is emotional due to said diction?

Tell me, has been a single post from you that has not attacked me for being emotional, antagonistic, etc? I saw one. Considering how much you have attacked me, maybe I should be the one to accuse you of antagonism. I am a southerner and I understand that false sincerity, southern hospitality bullshit. The "all due respects" and other bullshit do not make you innocent. So do not pretend to be innocent in this. I certainly do not.

That you swear was an added point, but never the crux of the issue

Then stop making it the crux of the issue.

and one I felt fine in acknowledging as a non-issue until you used it 'in defiance', as you put it, which painted a very different picture than your claim of it 'just being the way you talked' (to paraphrase).

Your method of argumentation is insulting to my intelligence and I find it offensive that you believe that you can make me believe what you have said.

Or I can just say fuck it. Did my last statement fit into your neat little world? Still a statement of defiance, just made in a prissy false nicety kind of way. Is that better?

Yes you did.

Really? This ought to be good.

At the end of your anecdote about Lee: "Let me ask you something, what do you know about Robert E. Lee? Probably the fact that he was a Confederate General. In other words, you probably know about as much about him as you know about Jackson" as an attempted closer to the argument, not even allowing a chance to respond before declaring deficiency in your opposition. This simultaneously takes the form of both belittling your opponent and asserting yourself as a superior in the topic by implicitly calling attention to your own percieved superior knowledge.

Belittling by stating that you probably know as much about a man who lived almost 150 years ago as most other people. As for my perceived superior knowledge, I know a story about Lee that very few people know and that is it. That is all I said. For all you know that could be everything that I know and I made no other statements in addition.

BTW you do realize that this is an internet forum correct? How long do you plan on spending on this topic? If you want to spend months on each and every topic pussyfooting around each other rather than taking any sort of chance, then you can go for it. Me on the other hand, I am a certified gunsmith. On the firearm topics people occasionally question my understanding of how firearms work. They accuse me of being some armchair gun owner. When they take that leap I point out that they are wrong and move on. It is not smart to get caught up on little things. You should try it.

In plainer terms, your use of rhetorical questions to try to cow people rather than as a part of actual rhetoric is a prime example of much of the attitude to which I refer and found so anathema.

Cow people? Or are you just making more shit up? You need to stop attacking me when you have nothing to attack me with. You just make yourself look like an ass when you attack people for no reason.

"Perhaps I should say the same about you. No, I would not stoop to that." This right here is a rather well known rhetorical trick, and a fairly popular way of making a claim and then pretending to be classy by denying that you actually said it. It's known as paralipsis or preteritio, and relies on drawing attention to a claim and suggesting it while seeming to disregard it.

So you said that I am implying something. Amazing. You know what would be a great trap for me to use? Put you into a position where all you can argue is that I am implying something and then use that to show how little you actually have to go on. I had no intention of doing that but you have proved my point over and over again that you care more implication than fact. In this case, I was actually denying it. It would have required you to actually understand who the fuck you are talking to so I can give you a pass. However in the future I suggest you try and use actual evidence rather than implication. Also, you stated that I said it twice. You have one implication but where is your second one?

Your parallel case relied on Argument from Authority via Bismark rather than historical analysis and independent verification.

So this is your tactic now. Instead of attacking my emotional state you are going to attack the fact that no one on god's great earth wants to sit around and quote hundreds of sources in order to prove a basic historical fact.

How about this, YOU need to state that I am wrong in my analysis of what Bismarck was doing. Go for it.

Actually, what I'm saying is simply that the use of such statements is a deplorable debate tactic.

Is it a tactic or is it you making shit up again? The latter.

In this sense there is no effective difference between a person declaring himself the victor or declaring his opposition the loser, as the results and methods are ultimately the same.

Is that so? Did I do either of those things? I said you were wrong. That does not denote either victory or defeat. It denotes the fact that you are wrong.

And again, I'm not attacking the politicians.

You say that while at the same time accusing them of judgment that denotes what would be a moral crime to many on this forum.

My entire point had been that it wasn't surprising that this debacle was viewed as a faux pas due to the sheer abundance of details that stacked upon each other to draw some very unfortunate parallels.

It is not surprising to me either. That does not make any of this logical or reasonable.

I never claimed the legislators were racists or anything similar.

And did I accuse you of saying that? I will wait.................no? Well then, have you ever considered that you are the one who has misunderstood what I am saying?

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I'm using that to make a claim about the legislators. I'm not.

And you seem to be under the false impression that I give a flying fuck whether you yourself attack them. Lending credence to attacks is the same as attacking them yourself.

I'm simply noting the predictability of the response given the manner in which this gerrymandering took place.

I would count it as predictable given this site and who was attacking them. It is not predictable due to the actual events but instead due to the politicians position and the position of their enemies.

farson135:
Property rights. Not property rights of slave owners, property rights.

Of slave-owners. Just because you want to spin it another way doesn't mean that's not what they were about.

Ok apparently you need a Texas history lesson.

Very interesting, but none of that addresses the point: Texas put slavery and white supremacy ahead of all other considerations when declaring their causes of secession.

As I pointed out to someone else, only the elites really cared about slavery.

Believing something doesn't make it true.

That is not what you attacked. You made a completely different argument.

Frankly, no.

I showed you that video so that you can hear one of the songs that were sung by Confederates in the field. They talk about liberty and the founders.

Which is about as relevant as calling feathers in one's hat macaroni.

farson135:
How about convincing me that you actually believe in your position? That would be a good start.

You're off the deep end farson. In what bizarre world do you live in where you think I am going to argue with you not because I hold different views than you, but for... what? Because I want to screw with you? If you think that, get yourself checked man, that line of thinking just isn't normal.

That my views on this forum are consistent should be proof enough that I stand behind my arguments.

edit: When you're ready to stop obfuscating and dodging, let me know, I would be happy to continue this.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked