By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - So... how about that Tea Party?

HappySqurriel on 24 May 2010
Final-Fan said:

The thing is that this is crazy.  The fact that we work to eliminate racial segregation doesn't mean that we should logically also work to eliminate men's and women's toilets.  Dealing with it on a case by case basis as you might say. 

And dealing with racial segregation socially ... didn't work.  Or, rather, the way it worked was the South, 1880-1950.  Now the innermost quoted post by you will say that this is simply a sad consequence of the correct position to take (government noninterference) but the idea that the problem would just go away on its own (once Jim Crow laws were gone) is pure fantasy.  Without the law against them the South may well have held out indefinitely. 

To put it another way, I'm looking at your final sentence.  If I'm not mistaken, racist clubs are allowed to exist, but businesses are treated differently since they are supposed to be open to the public.  American society on the whole decided racism was inappropriate, but Southern society came to a different answer, which they stuck to until American society as a whole used the law to force them to stop it. 

I think why you think this approach is crazy is because you make the assumption that the status quo would have been preserved in the south. Laws that encouraged or enforced systemic segregation would need to be eliminated, and all institutions or organizations that received government funding would be forced to integrate; because the government has no right to discriminate against its citizens. While it wouldn’t have the immediate impact of government forced integration, as more and more businesses integrated public sentiment would move more and more towards integration; and segregation in the south would have (mostly) eliminated itself.

One thing that people don’t seem to consider is that segregation is the kind of social norm which needs to be externally re-enforced in order to be preserved; and (over time) as people were put into more and more situations where they were integrated the fear of integration would disappear and support for segregation would vanish. Or to put it another way, if you’re dealing with people of all races at school, at the DMV, or when you’re eating at McDonalds it is unlikely that many people would purposefully continue to seek out segregated environments.



Around the Network
lostintheodyssey on 24 May 2010
CommonMan said:
I'm bored with the "tea party", I'd like to see some kind of a platform from. . . somebody. And no "I'm mad as hell!" is not a platform. Neither is "smaller government", it's a general concept, but these people just sound like they're just bitching in general. Ehh. . . well, if they get a few more republicans out of their seats, cool with me.

That's one of the issues I'm having with them at the moment.  So many people are out of work and looking for jobs and their rallying cry is to put even more people out of work with a smaller government.  Yeah the people at the top in government will make it just fine with their large salaries but the people at the bottom and middle live with more modest pay and they would be in trouble if all of a sudden they lost their job.



Kasz216 on 24 May 2010
Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
I've already shown in this thread Rausserman is the most accurate source when you compare real data despite them skewing right when you compare surveys.  In otherwords... polling skews towards a liberal perspective.  By comparing multiple sources, you end up with a liberal viewpoint.

I've heard that Rasmussen skewed right all through election season, but when the big night drew nigh it came more in line with the others -- that being the point at which you are judging them and they were closest.  Not true? 

Not to my knowledge... though even if it was true it's irrelevent.  They didn't change their polling questions at all and peoples opinions do change over the course of an election... espiecally that election where McCain went off the rails.

Meaning if there was any fraud it would have to be through direct data manipulation... and that would be EAISLY findable.

17 polls overestimated Obama and 4 McCain.  It's clear most polls slant left.

 

Edit: Actually Pollster.com seems to show the opposite.

 

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-pres-ge-mvo.php

 

Towards the middle of the election they were skewing HEAVY Obama vs other polls, then ended up more towards the middle.  I think... this thing is hard to understand.



Final-Fan on 24 May 2010
mrstickball said:
Final-Fan said:
The thing is that this is crazy.  The fact that we work to eliminate racial segregation doesn't mean that we should logically also work to eliminate men's and women's toilets.  Dealing with it on a case by case basis as you might say. 

And dealing with racial segregation socially ... didn't work.  Or, rather, the way it worked was the South, 1880-1950.  Now the innermost quoted post by you will say that this is simply a sad consequence of the correct position to take (government noninterference) but the idea that the problem would just go away on its own (once Jim Crow laws were gone) is pure fantasy.  Without the law against them the South may well have held out indefinitely. 

To put it another way, I'm looking at your final sentence.  If I'm not mistaken, racist clubs are allowed to exist, but businesses are treated differently since they are supposed to be open to the public.  American society on the whole decided racism was inappropriate, but Southern society came to a different answer, which they stuck to until American society as a whole used the law to force them to stop it. 

To be fair, the South didn't try it socially as much as legislatively. They had legal racism vis-a-vis the Jim Crow laws. These were state-enacted pieces of legislation. Only when the fed took them on, did it begin to dislodge itself from public laws.

Poll taxes, literacy tests, ect, caused most of the problems in the South after the Civil war for blacks - with few being elected (since they were not eligible to serve in official capacities), more supressive laws were passed, which continued to further damage their standing with businesses, and other realms.

Take a look at Jim Crow law history on Wikipedia. If you look at the anti-black legislation...You can see that the government did the most to destroy black Americans.

I know about all that, and it's a fair point to a certain extent, but the Jim Crow laws were much more of a manifestation of the culture than a cause of it. 

Example from the article:  Wilson got into office and the first thing he did was segregate everything he possibly could.  That wasn't due to any law, and despite his claim I seriously doubt it was for the benefit of blacks along with the whites. 

Jim Crow laws were created for the purpose of resisting Northern efforts to integrate (also mentioned in the article -- the CRA we all know and love was predated by close to a century by the CRA of 1875 which sadly did not take) as well as to keep blacks from gaining political power; and also to discourage any homegrown tolerance. 

I'd blame the Supreme Court more than the legislative branch.  But I guess they count as government so we agree? 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Kasz216 on 24 May 2010
lostintheodyssey said:
Kasz216 said:
lostintheodyssey said:
Kasz216 said:
lostintheodyssey said:
Kasz216 said:
lostintheodyssey said:
makingmusic476 said:
lostintheodyssey said:
 

All you have to do is look at history most people don't seem to act right unless they have the federal government breathing down their neck. 

How can you expect a government elected by and consisting of the people to be morally superior to the general public?  If a majority of the people don't want to act this way, then why are they electing officials that will force them to act this way?

Well if you have noticed most candidates don't give away where they stand on the issues until they get elected.  They take a middle of the road approach and they also switch positions on a issue sometime after getting elected.  When Lincoln got elected even though he didn't approve of slavery he said he would not end it he just wouldn't allow it to spread to the new territories.  After the civil war started due to south carolina trying to secede from the union he saw an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone by using the war to free the slaves.

But you asked a good question and it does happen.  In recent years polls have shown that most americans are in favor of legislation that prevents illegal immigration and terrorists from coming in to the country even if it discriminates against hispanics and people of arab descent.  Of course the federal government isn't going to pass any legislation that discriminates on those groups though.

Polls have recently came out saying that most americans approve of the immigration bill in arizona even though it has gotten a lot of opposition the majority seem to support it.  A few days ago Obama mentioned that discrimination shouldn't be considered acceptable when trying to capture illegal immigrants so go figure.

 

So... we can trust these people to do good... because they lie to us directly to our faces when they want us to vote for them?

That's your arguement. 

Also, you should REALLY do some research on Lincoln... because your interpretation of why he got rid of slavery... is just kinda funny.

I said they take a middle of the road approach until they get elected not giving away their positions.  For example candidates say they are for family values which sounds good but they haven't given anything away about what those values are.  They say they are for education and reform which are populist messages but they give absolutely nothing away about what they are going to do.  While they do that they also try to show that they are the most qualified for the position that's why governors tout that they have executive experience running their respective states.  Some tout a expansive educational background to show that they have intellectual capacity to take on tough challenges.

Which part about Lincoln did I get wrong?  Was it the part where I said he intially made the civil war about preserving the union or was it the part where I said he seized the opportunity to free the slaves?

The "seized the oppurtunity to free the slaves" part.  He didn't do it because he wanted to save the slaves.  He did it beacuse it was a political gambit that forced the British and French to withhold support from the south.  By reframing the Civil War about slavery he kept foreign support out of the war.

Lincoln didn't give a damn about the slaves, thought they were inferior, and planned to send them all back to Africa.

I admit I'm a little rusty in my US history it's been years but you sound rusty yourself.  Lincoln campaigned to stop the expansion of slavery and he thought slavery would eventually die out on its own.  He also considered negotiating with the states to buy out all of the slaves those points I do remember.

Now to your point about him making it about slavery to keep foreign support away you are just wrong.  True the confederate  wanted support from Britain and France but the United States warned them that if they supported the confederacy it would mean war with the united states and since the us had a formidable navy they would cut off the shipment of supplies to and from Britain.

In fact this is a large part of the reason the  North beat the south they toke over ports and blocking the movement of supplies I believe it was called the ananconda plan.

Finally if he didn't care about the slaves he would have said slavery is allowed to expand in to new territories and he wouldn't have considered buying out the slaves from the slave owners. 

Nah, i'm not rusty on it at all. 

You think the British and French were afraid of the US Navy?  Seriously?  Either one of their Navy's would of worked over the US Navy something fierce.

The reason he didn't allow slavery to expand is because he was from a free state.  Free states and Slave states were fighting for control of the union because the northerners were putting huge tarrifs on goods the south wanted to buy for Europe that they used in their argicultural trades.  So the South would instead be forced to buy from the Industrial North.

By stopping the expansion of slavery in the west you were creating more "Free Industrial" states... which means the "Free Industrial" states would win out and the Tarrifs would remain in place.

It was a pure economic and political move.  Like most moves politicians make when they claim morality.  The actual morality of the action is purely incidental.

If you study him, you'll realize he thought that black people could never be integrated in white society.  He didn't want to free the slaves... he wanted to kick them out of the country.

I'm not saying you are wrong but do you have a link to prove he believed that black people could never be integrated in white society and wanted to kick them out of the country? I have never heard of this before I remember hearing Liberia or some place similar to it was set up to give slaves an option to go back to Africa if they wanted to.

I agree with you that most moves are economic and political.  George Washington, Franklin, and others wanted to break away from Britain because of those motives you mentioned even though most people in the colonies were perfectly happy being ruled by Britain.

Not at the moment... but I'm sure I can find one.  It's fairly well known.

It was pretty much the belief of the time.

Even the most progressive of the time saw blacks as inherently inferior and unable to cope in white society... the big question was, do we stick with the immorality of slavery or confer on them some sort of lesser status.

Here is a decent one

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html

 

Heck, the "equalization" efforts after Lincoln's death were likely more about keeping those who once left the union in check then anything else.

You can find these all over the internet though, or in pretty much any biography about Lincoln.

 



Around the Network
Final-Fan on 24 May 2010
HappySqurriel said:
Final-Fan said:
The thing is that this is crazy.  The fact that we work to eliminate racial segregation doesn't mean that we should logically also work to eliminate men's and women's toilets.  Dealing with it on a case by case basis as you might say. 

And dealing with racial segregation socially ... didn't work.  Or, rather, the way it worked was the South, 1880-1950.  Now the innermost quoted post by you will say that this is simply a sad consequence of the correct position to take (government noninterference) but the idea that the problem would just go away on its own (once Jim Crow laws were gone) is pure fantasy.  Without the law against them the South may well have held out indefinitely. 

To put it another way, I'm looking at your final sentence.  If I'm not mistaken, racist clubs are allowed to exist, but businesses are treated differently since they are supposed to be open to the public.  American society on the whole decided racism was inappropriate, but Southern society came to a different answer, which they stuck to until American society as a whole used the law to force them to stop it. 

I think why you think this approach is crazy is because you make the assumption that the status quo would have been preserved in the south. Laws that encouraged or enforced systemic segregation would need to be eliminated, and all institutions or organizations that received government funding would be forced to integrate; because the government has no right to discriminate against its citizens. While it wouldn’t have the immediate impact of government forced integration, as more and more businesses integrated public sentiment would move more and more towards integration; and segregation in the south would have (mostly) eliminated itself.

One thing that people don’t seem to consider is that segregation is the kind of social norm which needs to be externally re-enforced in order to be preserved; and (over time) as people were put into more and more situations where they were integrated the fear of integration would disappear and support for segregation would vanish. Or to put it another way, if you’re dealing with people of all races at school, at the DMV, or when you’re eating at McDonalds it is unlikely that many people would purposefully continue to seek out segregated environments.

Well it's true that segregation would have a much harder time with the Feds keeping state, county, and municipal governments in line.  But regarding segregation needing reinforcement, you can say the same thing about racism I believe, but that hasn't stopped people from being racist.  Segregation is just much easier to see, and to stop.  If people hadn't been stopping them, lots of people and places wouldn't have stopped. 

McDonald's gets government funding? 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Kasz216 on 24 May 2010
CommonMan said:
I'm bored with the "tea party", I'd like to see some kind of a platform from. . . somebody. And no "I'm mad as hell!" is not a platform. Neither is "smaller government", it's a general concept, but these people just sound like they're just bitching in general. Ehh. . . well, if they get a few more republicans out of their seats, cool with me.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/02/06/blue-print-of-a-tea-party-platform.aspx

 



Kasz216 on 24 May 2010
Final-Fan said:
HappySqurriel said:
Final-Fan said:
The thing is that this is crazy.  The fact that we work to eliminate racial segregation doesn't mean that we should logically also work to eliminate men's and women's toilets.  Dealing with it on a case by case basis as you might say. 

And dealing with racial segregation socially ... didn't work.  Or, rather, the way it worked was the South, 1880-1950.  Now the innermost quoted post by you will say that this is simply a sad consequence of the correct position to take (government noninterference) but the idea that the problem would just go away on its own (once Jim Crow laws were gone) is pure fantasy.  Without the law against them the South may well have held out indefinitely. 

To put it another way, I'm looking at your final sentence.  If I'm not mistaken, racist clubs are allowed to exist, but businesses are treated differently since they are supposed to be open to the public.  American society on the whole decided racism was inappropriate, but Southern society came to a different answer, which they stuck to until American society as a whole used the law to force them to stop it. 

I think why you think this approach is crazy is because you make the assumption that the status quo would have been preserved in the south. Laws that encouraged or enforced systemic segregation would need to be eliminated, and all institutions or organizations that received government funding would be forced to integrate; because the government has no right to discriminate against its citizens. While it wouldn’t have the immediate impact of government forced integration, as more and more businesses integrated public sentiment would move more and more towards integration; and segregation in the south would have (mostly) eliminated itself.

One thing that people don’t seem to consider is that segregation is the kind of social norm which needs to be externally re-enforced in order to be preserved; and (over time) as people were put into more and more situations where they were integrated the fear of integration would disappear and support for segregation would vanish. Or to put it another way, if you’re dealing with people of all races at school, at the DMV, or when you’re eating at McDonalds it is unlikely that many people would purposefully continue to seek out segregated environments.

Well it's true that segregation would have a much harder time with the Feds keeping state, county, and municipal governments in line.  But regarding segregation needing reinforcement, you can say the same thing about racism I believe, but that hasn't stopped people from being racist.  Segregation is just much easier to see, and to stop.  If people hadn't been stopping them, lots of people and places wouldn't have stopped. 

McDonald's gets government funding? 

The big difference is racism gets social support.  It's all around us and you don't even really see it.

One wayt o put it is... it's easy to be racist... it's hard to act racist when your around a lot of black people and get to know them.

Here is a fun fact... Roger Kelly, former leader of the Klu Klux Klan ended up leaving the Klan partially because he became friends with a Black Man, an Author who wrote a book about the Klu Klux Klan.

"Klandestine Relations"  I believe the book is called.


Racism generally can be defeated, so long as people are aware of it and meet people of other cultures.  You just get issues like the afforementioned France in another thread, where the government puts off the vibe that there isn't really racism... and that's where things get worse.

So long as you have an open government fostering good will and publishing information about racial issues it should take care of itself.

How long it would of took though, is another story.  Civil Rights Legislation probably quickened things up with the expense of larger racism existed now then if it would of happened "organically."

Which some you could say "They should of did it that way" but that's easy to say in 2010.  Harder to say back then.

Which is really the big trouble with racially based laws to even things out by force.  It makes the "solution" farther away... but improves things now.

On the one hand you can look to the future, on the otherhand, it's hard to deny improving things for people currently around.



Kasz216 on 24 May 2010

Oh, also another fun Story on how to beat Racism?

Superman.

Seriously. Few people know this, but Superman was directly responsible for the dismantling of the Klu Klux Klan.

The Superman Radioshow was really popular... and to fight Racism, the makers decided to make Superman fight the Klan, and they made them sound silly running around in bedsheets and stuff... and this Klan members would come home and see there kids playing Superman, beating up the other kids in bedsheets making the clan look ridiculous. It right embarrassed the Klan members so much most of them ended up quitting.

http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/07.02.98/comics-9826.html

 

Sexism though....

 

Eh... maybe Batman?



Final-Fan on 25 May 2010
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
Well it's true that segregation would have a much harder time with the Feds keeping state, county, and municipal governments in line.  But regarding segregation needing reinforcement, you can say the same thing about racism I believe, but that hasn't stopped people from being racist.  Segregation is just much easier to see, and to stop.  If people hadn't been stopping them, lots of people and places wouldn't have stopped. 

McDonald's gets government funding? 

The big difference is racism gets social support.  It's all around us and you don't even really see it.
One wayt o put it is... it's easy to be racist... it's hard to act racist when your around a lot of black people and get to know them.
Here is a fun fact... Roger Kelly, former leader of the Klu Klux Klan ended up leaving the Klan partially because he became friends with a Black Man, an Author who wrote a book about the Klu Klux Klan.
"Klandestine Relations"  I believe the book is called.

Racism generally can be defeated, so long as people are aware of it and meet people of other cultures.  You just get issues like the afforementioned France in another thread, where the government puts off the vibe that there isn't really racism... and that's where things get worse.
So long as you have an open government fostering good will and publishing information about racial issues it should take care of itself.
How long it would of took though, is another story.  Civil Rights Legislation probably quickened things up with the expense of larger racism existed now then if it would of happened "organically."
Which some you could say "They should of did it that way" but that's easy to say in 2010.  Harder to say back then.
Which is really the big trouble with racially based laws to even things out by force.  It makes the "solution" farther away... but improves things now.
On the one hand you can look to the future, on the otherhand, it's hard to deny improving things for people currently around.

So what you're saying is that segregation helps racists stay racist, and encourages racism.  I can certainly believe that.  And desegregation helps discourage racism. 

But I'm not sure why people would be more racist now than if desegregation hadn't been forced outside of government or gov't-supported institutions.  Just because people will resist forced change generally, and this resistance ossified?  Or the "affirmative action effect"?  Or what? 
If it's too complicated to explain to a layman in a reasonably-sized post, just say so.  I'm a big boy, I can take it. 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom!