Should we allow states to let non citizens the right to vote in our elections.

WilyRickWiles comments on Apr 24, 2019:

I think we should go back to the original definition of citizenship in the Constitution, minus forms of discrimination that were abolished in subsequent amendments. That is, the original granting of citizenship to any free white man who had lived here for two years should be extended to women and ...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 24, 2019:

@iThink From a right-wing source I hate: "Every state in the United States legally bars non-citizens from voting in national or state elections. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, signed into law by President Clinton, made it a crime for any non-citizen to vote in a federal election." https://cis.org/Allowing-NonCitizens-Vote-United-States-Why-Not

Should we allow states to let non citizens the right to vote in our elections.

WilyRickWiles comments on Apr 24, 2019:

I think we should go back to the original definition of citizenship in the Constitution, minus forms of discrimination that were abolished in subsequent amendments. That is, the original granting of citizenship to any free white man who had lived here for two years should be extended to women and ...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 24, 2019:

@iThink Also worth emphasizing that states were allowed to do this before 1996. I wouldn't be against repealing that law before expanding citizenship, but why do in two steps what you can mostly accomplish in one?

Should we allow states to let non citizens the right to vote in our elections.

WilyRickWiles comments on Apr 24, 2019:

I think we should go back to the original definition of citizenship in the Constitution, minus forms of discrimination that were abolished in subsequent amendments. That is, the original granting of citizenship to any free white man who had lived here for two years should be extended to women and ...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 24, 2019:

@iThink Really? OK, I'll be more direct: technically my answer is no (particularly because it's against federal law!)--instead we should expand citizenship to everyone who has lived here for two years.

Should we allow states to let non citizens the right to vote in our elections.

WilyRickWiles comments on Apr 24, 2019:

I think we should go back to the original definition of citizenship in the Constitution, minus forms of discrimination that were abolished in subsequent amendments. That is, the original granting of citizenship to any free white man who had lived here for two years should be extended to women and ...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 24, 2019:

@Gerri4321 Eamonn de Valera, Prime Minister of Ireland, born in New York Janet Jagan, President of Guyana, born in Chicago Bhumibol Adulyadej, King of Thailand, born in Cambridge, MA Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed, President of Somalia, born in Somalia but is a US citizen I'm sure there are probably more.

Should we allow states to let non citizens the right to vote in our elections.

WilyRickWiles comments on Apr 24, 2019:

I think we should go back to the original definition of citizenship in the Constitution, minus forms of discrimination that were abolished in subsequent amendments. That is, the original granting of citizenship to any free white man who had lived here for two years should be extended to women and ...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 24, 2019:

@Gerri4321 Seems like it would be more of a concern for people in the other country...

Should we allow states to let non citizens the right to vote in our elections.

WilyRickWiles comments on Apr 24, 2019:

I think we should go back to the original definition of citizenship in the Constitution, minus forms of discrimination that were abolished in subsequent amendments. That is, the original granting of citizenship to any free white man who had lived here for two years should be extended to women and ...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 24, 2019:

@Gerri4321 I'm not following you. Only people born in the US can become President in the US. Who cares whether Americans go to other countries and become leaders there? I'm sure there are quite a few examples of that already!

Should we allow states to let non citizens the right to vote in our elections.

WilyRickWiles comments on Apr 24, 2019:

I think we should go back to the original definition of citizenship in the Constitution, minus forms of discrimination that were abolished in subsequent amendments. That is, the original granting of citizenship to any free white man who had lived here for two years should be extended to women and ...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 24, 2019:

@Gerri4321 No, you have to be a natural born citizen to be President.

Should we allow states to let non citizens the right to vote in our elections.

WilyRickWiles comments on Apr 24, 2019:

I think we should go back to the original definition of citizenship in the Constitution, minus forms of discrimination that were abolished in subsequent amendments. That is, the original granting of citizenship to any free white man who had lived here for two years should be extended to women and ...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 24, 2019:

@Gerri4321 I think my post was clear that voting is a disputed right because it wasn't delineated in the Bill of Rights. I think the spirit of the documents I cited contribute to a strong case to return to the original definition of citizenship, minus the unconstitutional parts--certainly stronger than some arguments made to deny rights to undocumented immigrants. As for due process and equality before the law, I think this is pretty clear, "nor shall any State deprive **any person** of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to **any person** within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." You show me where the 14th Amendment says that it only applies to freed slaves and their descendants.

Should we allow states to let non citizens the right to vote in our elections.

WilyRickWiles comments on Apr 24, 2019:

I think we should go back to the original definition of citizenship in the Constitution, minus forms of discrimination that were abolished in subsequent amendments. That is, the original granting of citizenship to any free white man who had lived here for two years should be extended to women and ...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 24, 2019:

@Gerri4321 My argument is above (original comment). I'm still waiting for yours.

Should we allow states to let non citizens the right to vote in our elections.

WilyRickWiles comments on Apr 24, 2019:

I think we should go back to the original definition of citizenship in the Constitution, minus forms of discrimination that were abolished in subsequent amendments. That is, the original granting of citizenship to any free white man who had lived here for two years should be extended to women and ...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 24, 2019:

@Gerri4321 Because reasons?

Should we allow states to let non citizens the right to vote in our elections.

WilyRickWiles comments on Apr 24, 2019:

I think we should go back to the original definition of citizenship in the Constitution, minus forms of discrimination that were abolished in subsequent amendments. That is, the original granting of citizenship to any free white man who had lived here for two years should be extended to women and ...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 24, 2019:

@Gerri4321 I've heard that before...

A Canadian man has been charged with "Family Violence" for refusing to call his child a "he" ...

John_G comments on Apr 24, 2019:

Let's see, The Government has decreed a father must refer to his daughter as [He], which is compelled speech. Because The Government has decreed his daughter can get dangerous hormone injections against the father's wishes to become a [He]. Then The Government has decreed his Speech is ...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 24, 2019:

@CRBG Regardless, at minimum the father's media outreach seems like a dick move.

A Canadian man has been charged with "Family Violence" for refusing to call his child a "he" ...

John_G comments on Apr 24, 2019:

Let's see, The Government has decreed a father must refer to his daughter as [He], which is compelled speech. Because The Government has decreed his daughter can get dangerous hormone injections against the father's wishes to become a [He]. Then The Government has decreed his Speech is ...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 24, 2019:

@CRBG I'm not a fan of Canada's speech laws. Can you explain to me what types of speech this applies to (I'm assuming it's just certain types of public speech), what the penalty is for the father, and what types of people are vulnerable to this law (is it just people with a special type of relationship, e.g., parent or spouse)?

A Canadian man has been charged with "Family Violence" for refusing to call his child a "he" ...

John_G comments on Apr 24, 2019:

Let's see, The Government has decreed a father must refer to his daughter as [He], which is compelled speech. Because The Government has decreed his daughter can get dangerous hormone injections against the father's wishes to become a [He]. Then The Government has decreed his Speech is ...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 24, 2019:

@CRBG Ah yes, I go to the Heritage Foundation for medical advice all the time.

A Canadian man has been charged with "Family Violence" for refusing to call his child a "he" ...

MLACANA comments on Apr 24, 2019:

Wow. I cant even imagine, as a parent, to go through something like that because u are telling to ur kid the truth. No freedom.of speech at all. Well, its the new strategy put in place by the School of Frankfurt - to destroy the relationship between parents and their kids and destroy traditional ...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 24, 2019:

To blame this whole thing on a "cultural Marxist" conspiracy theory seems a stretch. It's more likely that the backers of the conservative movement are using this as a wedge issue to make McCarthyism and the culture war great again. Canada may have overstepped with its speech laws, but don't forget how this obsession and intrusion into the lives of individuals all started--with the bathroom bill in North Carolina.

A Canadian man has been charged with "Family Violence" for refusing to call his child a "he" ...

Snowdog comments on Apr 24, 2019:

This is the lunacy that we have come to in our world. Parents really have no rights in regards to raising their children. Who in their right mind can believe that a child has any understanding of their emotions at that young age and is it not the parent's responsibility to try and guide them ...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 24, 2019:

The mother supported the hormone replacement therapy. Surely she deserved a voice in this matter.

A Canadian man has been charged with "Family Violence" for refusing to call his child a "he" ...

chuckpo comments on Apr 24, 2019:

I'm not Canadian, so I hope I'm not over-stepping. Honestly, I don't distingush between you and us (the US). I feel like we're the same people--I know that's insulting to some Canadians, so I'll just note that's only MY PERSONAL feelings, and it's a positive one to me. What a horrific example of...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 24, 2019:

What about the 14-year old's mother and medical professionals, who supported the hormone replacement therapy?

A Canadian man has been charged with "Family Violence" for refusing to call his child a "he" ...

John_G comments on Apr 24, 2019:

Let's see, The Government has decreed a father must refer to his daughter as [He], which is compelled speech. Because The Government has decreed his daughter can get dangerous hormone injections against the father's wishes to become a [He]. Then The Government has decreed his Speech is ...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 24, 2019:

The 14-year old's mother and medical professionals supported the hormone replacement therapy.

Are the norms of traditional morality just another form of political correctness?

The_Farseer comments on Apr 24, 2019:

If they were used like a cudgel to keep people under control and silence dissent, then yes. But no, morality is no more a system of control than your mom stopping you from eating candy all day. And what do you mean "Traditional" morality? Are you a moral relativist?

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 24, 2019:

Not a moral relativist. By traditional I'm not referring to the universal morality of the Enlightenment, I'm referring to the "traditional values," e.g., children should be seen and not heard, women should submit to their husbands and men generally, homosexuality, adultery, and divorce should be forbidden, authorities should inherently be respected and are ordained by God, public schools should have Christian prayer and Bible study and segregation should be allowed in tax exempt Christian schools, creationism should replace evolution in school curriculum, legislation should comply with the Ten Commandments, etc.

The left argues that the citizenship question on the census will cause non-citizens to not respond ...

Georgesblogforum comments on Apr 24, 2019:

Illegals have no citizenship rights . The census question screens out illegal voters and applicants to benefit programs . The census question stands in the way of Democrat vote fraud .

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 24, 2019:

First off, non-citizens are not going to vote in federal elections--it's against federal law. And as I put it in my comment on another post: There weren't immigration laws until the Chinese Exclusion Act and other similarly racist legislation in the late 1800s, ironically just as the Statue of Liberty was being dedicated. Originally, citizenship belonged to any free white man who has lived here for two years. But even then, all free persons and 3/5 of other persons (i.e., slaves) were included in the Census in keeping with Article One of the Constitution. Here's what the Declaration of Independence says on the matter: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that **all men are created equal**, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Here's what the 14th Amendment says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive **any person** of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to **any person** within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the **whole number of persons** in each State, excluding Indians not taxed." As for voting, non-citizens weren't barred from voting in federal elections until the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. I think the fact that a right to vote is not made explicit in the Bill of Rights has made it easier to infringe. So too perhaps has the use of the word "citizens" in the aforementioned 14th Amendment, and the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th.

More Than Two Dimensions

iThink comments on Apr 23, 2019:

I agree there is a lot of misinformation about the Civil wary but there should be no doubt in anyones mind that Slavery was the fundamental cause of the conflict. If it was not about slavery then why would all of the Slave States secede from the Union while all the Free States remained in the Union....

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 24, 2019:

@Marta-Amance And states' rights to do what (hint: it's own slaves)? Moreover, do states that value states' rights enact federal fugitive slave laws and take issue with states that don't comply?

More Than Two Dimensions

iThink comments on Apr 23, 2019:

I agree there is a lot of misinformation about the Civil wary but there should be no doubt in anyones mind that Slavery was the fundamental cause of the conflict. If it was not about slavery then why would all of the Slave States secede from the Union while all the Free States remained in the Union....

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 24, 2019:

@Marta-Amance I'd argue that it was basically about slavery. The war was precipitated by tensions over the North's attempts to stop the expansion of Slave Power.

Nobody wants to work on themselves.

REParker comments on Apr 23, 2019:

You generalize. That's not true of everyone.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 23, 2019:

Exactly, he falls victim to his own criticism. Most of the progressives I know act from a sense of civic responsibility, not because they are unsuccessful or unhappy with their lives. Sure, some may want to see changes in the world that they think would create an environment that they would be even happier in, or might have prevented some past hardship, but they are not externalizing their shortcomings. There is an actual philosophy underpinning their worldview.

Does the term white privilege exist in America?

Halligan comments on Apr 23, 2019:

I believe dvarga succinctly hit the nail on the head (response on April 22). It's an intentional agenda driven by the far left using Alinskian tactics to divide the US into the 'haves' versus the 'have-nots' so they can reshape society as they see fit. They use tactics involving white privilege, ...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 23, 2019:

**far left** Really? Seems to be a corporate liberal thing to me. **using Alinskian tactics** Are "Alinskian tactics" really that novel? You know the Tea Party used them... **reshape society** Isn't that what politics is about? **the end justifies the means.** I hear this used a lot, but for it to be relevant, I think you first have to establish that the means are really bad. And that's debatable. You could say the same about the right. I'm more partial to what Kant said about treating people as ends rather than means (capitalism does the latter).

Does the term white privilege exist in America?

chuckpo comments on Apr 22, 2019:

Preposterous. It's just an example of moving the goalposts. Here's a couple of questions. Which way is the better way to treat members of society? Should we adopt the 'black historical experience', or should we adopt the average 'white experience'. Let's just assume nobody's going to argue we should...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 23, 2019:

@chuckpo I thought I'd post MLK Jr.'s Where Do We Go From Here speech, putting in **bold** parts that might be surprising to those who are bothered by the video in OP: Dr. Abernathy, our distinguished vice president, fellow delegates to this, the tenth annual session of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, my brothers and sisters from not only all over the South, but from all over the United States of America: ten years ago during the piercing chill of a January day and on the heels of the year-long Montgomery bus boycott, a group of approximately one hundred Negro leaders from across the South assembled in this church and agreed on the need for an organization to be formed that could serve as a channel through which local protest organizations in the South could coordinate their protest activities. It was this meeting that gave birth to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. And when our organization was formed ten years ago, racial segregation was still a structured part of the architecture of southern society. Negroes with the pangs of hunger and the anguish of thirst were denied access to the average lunch counter. The downtown restaurants were still off-limits for the black man. Negroes, burdened with the fatigue of travel, were still barred from the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. Negro boys and girls in dire need of recreational activities were not allowed to inhale the fresh air of the big city parks. Negroes in desperate need of allowing their mental buckets to sink deep into the wells of knowledge were confronted with a firm "no" when they sought to use the city libraries. Ten years ago, legislative halls of the South were still ringing loud with such words as "interposition" and "nullification." All types of conniving methods were still being used to keep the Negro from becoming a registered voter. A decade ago, not a single Negro entered the legislative chambers of the South except as a porter or a chauffeur. Ten years ago, all too many Negroes were still harried by day and haunted by night by a corroding sense of fear and a nagging sense of nobody-ness. (Yeah) But things are different now. In assault after assault, we caused the sagging walls of segregation to come tumbling down. During this era the entire edifice of segregation was profoundly shaken. This is an accomplishment whose consequences are deeply felt by every southern Negro in his daily life. (Oh yeah) It is no longer possible to count the number of public establishments that are open to Negroes. Ten years ago, Negroes seemed almost invisible to the larger society, and the facts of their harsh lives were unknown to the majority of the nation. But today, civil rights is a dominating issue in every state, crowding the pages of the press ...

Does the term white privilege exist in America?

chuckpo comments on Apr 22, 2019:

Preposterous. It's just an example of moving the goalposts. Here's a couple of questions. Which way is the better way to treat members of society? Should we adopt the 'black historical experience', or should we adopt the average 'white experience'. Let's just assume nobody's going to argue we should...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 22, 2019:

@chuckpo Well you don't have to continue engaging if you don't want to. There is a difference I've noticed between our replies. I try to reveal parts of my perspective that might be illuminating to you or other people who come across the conversation--this place can be quite an echo chamber--and try to contest ideas that I think are worth engaging. You on the other hand, make metacriticisms, verging on the personal, and attempt to constrain the frame of debate, while posturing about rationality and civility. If I were to return the favor, I imagine the conversation would get very uncivil, very quickly (admittedly, with this reply I am now guilty of doing that). Something to think about. As I hinted above, I don't just believe having friendly debates to change minds. It's OK to have enemies.

Does the term white privilege exist in America?

chuckpo comments on Apr 22, 2019:

Preposterous. It's just an example of moving the goalposts. Here's a couple of questions. Which way is the better way to treat members of society? Should we adopt the 'black historical experience', or should we adopt the average 'white experience'. Let's just assume nobody's going to argue we should...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 22, 2019:

@chuckpo Oh, and we may be talking about different groups of people, but I think the working class was better at self-education in the 1800s. At least in terms of using politics to their collective advantage and working their way up in the world. But there's no denying that there is the potential for the average person to be better educated today--and probably on average (across classes) people are. But I think truly working class people (think janitors, truck drivers, factory workers, care workers, and Dunkin Donuts employees) don't have the same time to educate themselves as past generations and they are more atomized. The ones who do are probably going to night school.

Does the term white privilege exist in America?

chuckpo comments on Apr 22, 2019:

Preposterous. It's just an example of moving the goalposts. Here's a couple of questions. Which way is the better way to treat members of society? Should we adopt the 'black historical experience', or should we adopt the average 'white experience'. Let's just assume nobody's going to argue we should...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 22, 2019:

@chuckpo I'll just say that recognizing racism is not the same as racism. And that human nature stuff is reductive. I do agree that people need much more than just a check. I don't agree that our institutional responsibilities equate to blaming white people.

Does the term white privilege exist in America?

chuckpo comments on Apr 22, 2019:

Preposterous. It's just an example of moving the goalposts. Here's a couple of questions. Which way is the better way to treat members of society? Should we adopt the 'black historical experience', or should we adopt the average 'white experience'. Let's just assume nobody's going to argue we should...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 22, 2019:

@chuckpo Probably going to sit out responding to your last reply, but here's what I was writing when the notification popped up. It's on the topic you've touched on about the right way to have conversations and achieve social change: I think one may be able to change someone's mind for a minute, but if they're not around people like you all the time, it's not going to stick. For example, I have a couple of married gay friends. Around the time of their wedding, they visited some rural relatives and were able to gain their acceptance. But that acceptance didn't spread to their neighbors and even the relatives saw them as an exception ("one of the good ones"). There's probably some law in network science that explains it. Regardless, I think Obama and Trump have taught people some lessons. Obama taught us that leadership and representation alone don't cure social problems. Trump taught us that people can be manipulated with propaganda. Together, they taught us that there are some people, a toxic minority, who you can't win over to your side. They may be well-intentioned, but you just have to defeat them, using propaganda, voting, changing the system (as Republicans are known to do), or whatever means necessary. That doesn't mean you stop representing them in good faith when you're in power--it just means you do everything you can to overwhelm them politically. Mass culture will always trail the liberal position, but it be pulled gradually toward it.

Does the term white privilege exist in America?

chuckpo comments on Apr 22, 2019:

Preposterous. It's just an example of moving the goalposts. Here's a couple of questions. Which way is the better way to treat members of society? Should we adopt the 'black historical experience', or should we adopt the average 'white experience'. Let's just assume nobody's going to argue we should...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 22, 2019:

@chuckpo It's like corporate liberals are saying "as long as we let a few minorities into executive positions and rural whites stop being racist, racism is solved," and conservatives are saying "racism is already solved." When really we need to do more to give average people regardless of race to get a leg up. And the only way to do that IMO is to tax the rich and rethink our monetary policy. I do however think we owe a special debt to descendants of slaves and victims of Jim Crow and that affirmative action helps deserving people who would otherwise be passed over. In the long run, though, I have my money on corporate liberals. Their identity politics and Trump's white identity politics are two sides of the same coin and they work to create a polarization that is working in the Democrats' advantage. Trumpism is a huge turnoff for people in the suburbs. Not sure how well that will work in the short term or in the rest of the world, though.

History: Between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly 1 million and quite possibly as many as ...

Clammypollack comments on Apr 20, 2019:

Wrong. Only America enslaved people and it is our ‘original sin’. Just ask a leftist.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 22, 2019:

@CRBG Merely adding the words "what about" does not "whataboutery" make.

History: Between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly 1 million and quite possibly as many as ...

Clammypollack comments on Apr 20, 2019:

Wrong. Only America enslaved people and it is our ‘original sin’. Just ask a leftist.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 22, 2019:

@CRBG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

History: Between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly 1 million and quite possibly as many as ...

Clammypollack comments on Apr 20, 2019:

Wrong. Only America enslaved people and it is our ‘original sin’. Just ask a leftist.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 22, 2019:

@CRBG **However, your response to Clammy wasn't too accurate. Converting to Islam wasn't an option for captured slaves** Like I said many times, it was in the very book you referenced. We're getting into a not-very-well-documented weeds, so I think I will leave it at that. **Clammy, however, wasn't too off the mark. If she wants to compare only a portion of the TransAtlantic slave trade (Ex: # of slaves in America) vs. only a portion of the Eastern Slave Trade (# of slaves in the Barbary Coast), I think you'll find that there were possibly more white European Christians enslaved in the Barbary Coast than you would find Africans enslaved in America in the same period: 1500s to 1700s.** We weren't talking numbers at that point--just heredity and race, which I still think make the difference regardless of numbers. And I think we've exhausted the numbers debate now that we've covered the last 1,300 years of slavery.

Does the term white privilege exist in America?

chuckpo comments on Apr 22, 2019:

Preposterous. It's just an example of moving the goalposts. Here's a couple of questions. Which way is the better way to treat members of society? Should we adopt the 'black historical experience', or should we adopt the average 'white experience'. Let's just assume nobody's going to argue we should...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 22, 2019:

@chuckpo I disagree that the "victim" lens is the right way to view this sort of thing, though. It's more about recognizing real social and power dynamics and creating a language to navigate differences among a new multicultural (but still mostly white) elite.

Does the term white privilege exist in America?

chuckpo comments on Apr 22, 2019:

Preposterous. It's just an example of moving the goalposts. Here's a couple of questions. Which way is the better way to treat members of society? Should we adopt the 'black historical experience', or should we adopt the average 'white experience'. Let's just assume nobody's going to argue we should...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 22, 2019:

@chuckpo By "capitalist elite reproducing itself," I meant that content like this is useful for establishing a shared understanding in the multicultural workplace from which the next generation of capitalists will emerge. The working class does not operate in professional or academic circles, so it finds such content alienating. And part of that may be by design--if you can wrap your head around it, you probably have what it takes to self-anoint yourself into the elite. The irony is that it is difficult to do so without some privilege.

History: Between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly 1 million and quite possibly as many as ...

Clammypollack comments on Apr 20, 2019:

Wrong. Only America enslaved people and it is our ‘original sin’. Just ask a leftist.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 22, 2019:

@CRBG Glad we are on more of the same page now. And I do think that it matters that the Atlantic slave trade enslaved on the order of the same number of people in approximately a third of the time. I do think that the conditions and terms of slavery mattered. I do think that you need to look at each responsible institution separately. Who would we hold responsible today? Who today has inherited the wealth of the slaveholders and the wounds of slavery? Has anything been done to compound those wounds? How have other geopolitical events, such as colonization, complicated matters? I understand why you personally might be fixated on the Muslim world in general, but for most people in America, pointing fingers is just a way to deflect their own national responsibility. They are better off focusing on the things they can control here at home first, and that means atoning for the compounded wounds inflicted by the chattel slavery of blacks. We should not lower our moral standards just because past generations or other nations did.

History: Between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly 1 million and quite possibly as many as ...

Clammypollack comments on Apr 20, 2019:

Wrong. Only America enslaved people and it is our ‘original sin’. Just ask a leftist.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 22, 2019:

@CRBG **AGAIN? YOU'RE ASSUMING I'M COMPARING THE TRANSATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE TO THE BARBARY SLAVE TRADE? MY POST DIDN'T EVEN MENTION THE TRANSATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE. YOU BROUGHT THAT UP IN SOME FALSE ATTEMPT TO MINIMIZE SLAVE TRADING BY ARABS AND EXAGGERATE SLAVE TRADING BY EUROPEANS.** No, Clammy brought it up. Again, before you got off on a tangent, I was responding to her equating slavery in America (a product of the Atlantic slave trade) to the Barbary slave trade (which you mentioned in your OP).

Does the term white privilege exist in America?

chuckpo comments on Apr 22, 2019:

Preposterous. It's just an example of moving the goalposts. Here's a couple of questions. Which way is the better way to treat members of society? Should we adopt the 'black historical experience', or should we adopt the average 'white experience'. Let's just assume nobody's going to argue we should...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 22, 2019:

@chuckpo I do genuinely want to empathize with and understand people better (even people I don't agree with or who have done horrible things) so that I can be a better neighbor, co-worker, friend, and citizen so I find some utility in videos like this, and don't find them threatening.

Does the term white privilege exist in America?

chuckpo comments on Apr 22, 2019:

Preposterous. It's just an example of moving the goalposts. Here's a couple of questions. Which way is the better way to treat members of society? Should we adopt the 'black historical experience', or should we adopt the average 'white experience'. Let's just assume nobody's going to argue we should...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 22, 2019:

@chuckpo I do think that mainstream identity politics is a product of the capitalist elite reproducing itself. But there are nuggets of truth and I'll take such politics over aristocratic nativism (i.e., white identity politics) any day. MLK Jr.'s approach was better because of its working class solidarity and systemic critique.

Yellow Vest in Paris, Extinction Rebellion in London, etc.

WilyRickWiles comments on Apr 22, 2019:

Yes, the civil rights movement in the United States, for example. It's a way to get media attention and raise awareness. I think that outweighs some people's resentment of protesters.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 22, 2019:

@Naomi I think the type of video coverage generated by demonstrations is uniquely convincing. It's harder to argue that it doesn't represent something real. And I think you've gotta use all the channels available to you.

History: Between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly 1 million and quite possibly as many as ...

Clammypollack comments on Apr 20, 2019:

Wrong. Only America enslaved people and it is our ‘original sin’. Just ask a leftist.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 22, 2019:

@CRBG You've provided some numbers and date ranges, but here's what I'd like to see: a date range for slavery in the Muslim world and a date range for the Atlantic slave trade that you think are apples to apples, along with the numbers of people who were enslaved during those time frames. I hope you're not talking about the Middle Ages. Most estimates I've seen counting slaves transported (not including born into) in the Atlantic slave trade between the 1500s and 1800s are on the order of 10 million, e.g., 12.8 million in "The Fortunes of Africa" by Meredith Martin. That's on the order of ten times more than the 1.25 million Barbary slaves you mentioned during roughly the same time frame. Once you've established that we can get into the substance of whether it is fair to conflate multiple ethnic and national groups and whether the conditions and terms of slavery can be equated. And again, I'm not interested in having the debate about the modern day, especially not until we've established an equivalence.

Does the term white privilege exist in America?

chuckpo comments on Apr 22, 2019:

Preposterous. It's just an example of moving the goalposts. Here's a couple of questions. Which way is the better way to treat members of society? Should we adopt the 'black historical experience', or should we adopt the average 'white experience'. Let's just assume nobody's going to argue we should...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 22, 2019:

@chuckpo **think psychologically** What?

History: Between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly 1 million and quite possibly as many as ...

Clammypollack comments on Apr 20, 2019:

Wrong. Only America enslaved people and it is our ‘original sin’. Just ask a leftist.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 22, 2019:

Be specific then.

History: Between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly 1 million and quite possibly as many as ...

Clammypollack comments on Apr 20, 2019:

Wrong. Only America enslaved people and it is our ‘original sin’. Just ask a leftist.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 22, 2019:

@CRBG Not to mention that going back to ancient times, using different time frames, and lumping together disparate nations and ethnic groups complicates things.

History: Between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly 1 million and quite possibly as many as ...

Clammypollack comments on Apr 20, 2019:

Wrong. Only America enslaved people and it is our ‘original sin’. Just ask a leftist.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 22, 2019:

@CRBG If you're telling me that it took thousands years to enslave as many people as the Atlantic slave trade did in hundreds, I don't think that helps your point!

History: Between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly 1 million and quite possibly as many as ...

Clammypollack comments on Apr 20, 2019:

Wrong. Only America enslaved people and it is our ‘original sin’. Just ask a leftist.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 22, 2019:

@CRBG For starters, give me a date range. Are we going back thousands of years in time here? I was pretty clear that I was comparing the Barbary slave trade to the Atlantic slave trade between the 1500s and the 1800s.

Does the term white privilege exist in America?

chuckpo comments on Apr 22, 2019:

Preposterous. It's just an example of moving the goalposts. Here's a couple of questions. Which way is the better way to treat members of society? Should we adopt the 'black historical experience', or should we adopt the average 'white experience'. Let's just assume nobody's going to argue we should...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 22, 2019:

@chuckpo I do wish white people would be more resilient to messages like this. While not all white people have the same privileges, and black people have some of their own, being white often does provide some psychological and physical security and the kind of speech in the video is not really a threat to them. And whether one realizes it or not, reacting by policing their tone comes across as an act of repression by the white majority.

Does the term white privilege exist in America?

chuckpo comments on Apr 22, 2019:

Preposterous. It's just an example of moving the goalposts. Here's a couple of questions. Which way is the better way to treat members of society? Should we adopt the 'black historical experience', or should we adopt the average 'white experience'. Let's just assume nobody's going to argue we should...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 22, 2019:

@chuckpo I think you're focusing more on style and tone than substance.

History: Between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly 1 million and quite possibly as many as ...

Clammypollack comments on Apr 20, 2019:

Wrong. Only America enslaved people and it is our ‘original sin’. Just ask a leftist.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 22, 2019:

@CRBG I don't care if that was your motivation for making this post or that you wanted to shift the conversation back to it and away from my claim. I'm not interested in having that conversation more than I already have by comparing the number of slaves in two different slave trades during the same roughly three century period (as I've said twice, the difference is 10-fold). If you have numbers from other parts of the Arab Muslim world or other time periods that you think are relevant, feel free to offer them.

History: Between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly 1 million and quite possibly as many as ...

Clammypollack comments on Apr 20, 2019:

Wrong. Only America enslaved people and it is our ‘original sin’. Just ask a leftist.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 22, 2019:

@CRBG **Where did I say that the Barabary slave trade was equal to the Atlantic slave trade????? I NEVER DID! I said that slavery (on the whole, including slavery of Africans) by Arab Muslims is equivalent, but the only difference is that the West acknowledges and apologizes for it. The Arabs DO NOT.** This exchange started when I said that they could not be equated. You strongly contested my claim, beginning with the words, "So religious-based slavery is better than race-based slavery." Forgive me if I mistook that for disagreement. Moreover, you just used the word "equivalent" with a qualification that was based on the modern day Arab Muslims in general and did not address any of my supporting claims. **African slavery in the Arab world was also race-based and hereditary.** What does this have to do with Barbary slavery, which was the ONLY topic of my comment? Get more specific and we can talk. **Again, you think I'm comparing a tiny sliver of slavery by Arabs (European Christians) to the WHOLE history of the TransAtlantic slavery by Europeans?** Nope, you pretty clearly focused on the years between 1530 and 1780 for both groups. As did I.

History: Between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly 1 million and quite possibly as many as ...

Clammypollack comments on Apr 20, 2019:

Wrong. Only America enslaved people and it is our ‘original sin’. Just ask a leftist.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 22, 2019:

@CRBG **AAHHHHAAA. I see, so you assume that when I mention that Arab Muslims enslaved Christian Europeans, that THAT was the ONLY form of slavery that ARAB MUSLIMS engaged in?** You're still deflecting. My original point was that the Barbary slave trade was not equal to the Atlantic slave trade because the latter was hereditary and race-based while you could be freed by converting to Islam under the former. I never contested your #s 1 and 2. I brought up #4 because of your deflections. Back to the topic at hand, you countered that race-based slavery is not worse than religious-based slavery and that I was wrong about conversion. I countered by pointing to your own source about conversion. I added another claim that the Atlantic slave trade claimed an order of magnitude more people (this addresses your #3). So let's see which of my points stand: 1. Atlantic slavery was hereditary 2. Atlantic slavery was race-based 3. Barbary slaves who converted were freed 4. 10 times more people were enslaved by the Atlantic slave trade during the same time period 5. All of the above supports the claim that the Atlantic slave trade was objectively worse than the Barbary slave trade That's it.

Does the term white privilege exist in America?

chuckpo comments on Apr 22, 2019:

Preposterous. It's just an example of moving the goalposts. Here's a couple of questions. Which way is the better way to treat members of society? Should we adopt the 'black historical experience', or should we adopt the average 'white experience'. Let's just assume nobody's going to argue we should...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 22, 2019:

I disagree that "the most sensible action to white privilege" is "to knock white people down." I certainly don't see that zero sum view in the video. My sense is that the producers of the video are seeking awareness by contributing to the public conversation. They're giving us a perspective into what it's like to be black in America. That is important because it influences decisions about laws and how institutions are run. That being said, I do not think awareness is enough. We do need to return to MLK Jr.'s vision. That vision was manifested by the demands of the civil rights movement which influenced the civil rights acts and Great Society legislation. The implementation of some of that legislation was stopped in its tracks and the parts that weren't continue to be watered down to this day. The "Where do we go from here" speech by Dr. King https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m1PRN9VCfw and this recent speech by Rev. Barber https://www.facebook.com/RevDrBarber/videos/1222712934542809 get to the heart of the matter.

History: Between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly 1 million and quite possibly as many as ...

Clammypollack comments on Apr 20, 2019:

Wrong. Only America enslaved people and it is our ‘original sin’. Just ask a leftist.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 22, 2019:

@CRBG OK, let me illustrate how this conversation got off track. I hope this will be clear enough. You (OP): Cited an estimate by Robert Davis from his book "Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy, 1500–1800" of the number of white, Christian Europeans who were ensnared by the Barbary slave trade between 1530 and 1780. Clammy (comment): Sarcastically claims that you are wrong. Says leftists would claim that only America enslaved people. Me (reply): Leftists do not deny the history of slavery by non-Americans. But Barbary slavery is not equal to American slavery. You: So religious slavery is better? Proceeds to compare modern day Americans and Europeans to generalizations of modern day Muslims. Me: That's an odd deflection. Wonders what about my my reply triggered it. You: Again, compares modern day Americans and Europeans to generalizations of modern day Muslims. Me: Answers question about whether I think "religious slavery was better": I wouldn't characterize it that way but here are more facts demonstrating how the Atlantic slave trade was worse than the Barbary slave trade. You: Again, compares modern day Americans and Europeans to generalizations of modern day Muslims to dispute conversion. Me: Look at your own source! And why do you keep deflecting? You: Again, compares modern day Americans and Europeans to generalizations of modern day Muslims. Me: Can we get back to the topic of whether Barbary slavery was equal to American slavery? Why insist that Berbers hundreds of years ago conformed with your modern day generalizations when we have a book--that you cited--that tells us exactly what they did do? You: Again, compares modern day Americans and Europeans to generalizations of modern day Muslims.

History: Between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly 1 million and quite possibly as many as ...

Clammypollack comments on Apr 20, 2019:

Wrong. Only America enslaved people and it is our ‘original sin’. Just ask a leftist.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 22, 2019:

@CRBG When you need to use modern day generalizations about Muslims to support your argument about Berbers hundreds of years ago, it's a good sign that your argument is weak. Have you even read the book you're paraphrasing?

History: Between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly 1 million and quite possibly as many as ...

Clammypollack comments on Apr 20, 2019:

Wrong. Only America enslaved people and it is our ‘original sin’. Just ask a leftist.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 22, 2019:

@CRBG Are you 300 years old?

History: Between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly 1 million and quite possibly as many as ...

Clammypollack comments on Apr 20, 2019:

Wrong. Only America enslaved people and it is our ‘original sin’. Just ask a leftist.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 22, 2019:

@CRBG **According to Islam, you cannot CHANGE your religion** When, where, and whose Islam? Regardless, your source pretty clearly is "Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy, 1500–1800" by Robert Davis. I've already conceded your points using this source even though there may be room to contest them. The book says: "There are no records of how many men, women and children were enslaved, but it is possible to calculate roughly the number of fresh captives that would have been needed to keep populations steady and replace those slaves who died, escaped, were ransomed, or **converted** to Islam." **Also, you're not addressing my point at all. My point is what is each culture's response to its own historical slavery?** Your point has nothing to do with my original reply to Clammy's comment, nor was it included in the original post. I find it really bizarre but unsurprising that you keep drawing these off-topic comparisons.

The running count is over 9,000 lies since Trump took office how do you people not see that?

Hiker comments on Apr 21, 2019:

I see it as exaggerated truth ,.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 22, 2019:

"Truthful hyperbole" as his ghostwriter dubbed it.

History: Between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly 1 million and quite possibly as many as ...

Clammypollack comments on Apr 20, 2019:

Wrong. Only America enslaved people and it is our ‘original sin’. Just ask a leftist.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 22, 2019:

@CRBG **If EVER any Europeans kidnapped Arab Muslims and sold them into slavery in Europe, do you think you'd EVER hear the end of it????** **Today's whites are so arrogant that they actually think that they are the inheritors of the worst evils in the world** **Is your assignment of guilt for slavery relative to skin colour?** **Don't you think that the Arab world's refusal to admit its own history of slavery allows for the continuation of race-based indentured servitude?** What does any of this have to do with my comment? This is why I asked you "is your morality completely relative to your perception of the morality of other groups of people?" **So religious-based slavery is better than race-based slavery** Religion is not a fundamental attribute of a person. You can change it. So while I think it is a bit of a stretch to call Barbary slavery "religious-based slavery," I'll concede the point and say yes, it's better than race-based slavery. And like I said, Barbary slavery wasn't hereditary. Moreover, the Atlantic slave trade enslaved an order of magnitude more people and millions more were born into it during the same time period. But hey, feel free to provide evidence to disprove my argument and support your counterargument rather than put words in my mouth.

I would like to bring attention to not only the border patrol but the PATRIOTS who have taken upon ...

WilyRickWiles comments on Apr 20, 2019:

I have many issues with this, but I'll focus on one of them. If you elevate crossing the border outside of a port of entry to the level of a serious crime, you should be equally or more critical of armed vigilante action.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 21, 2019:

@Tommy6915 If you can't tell who the vigilantes are from the OP or the context of my comments, I don't know what to say.

I would like to bring attention to not only the border patrol but the PATRIOTS who have taken upon ...

WilyRickWiles comments on Apr 20, 2019:

I have many issues with this, but I'll focus on one of them. If you elevate crossing the border outside of a port of entry to the level of a serious crime, you should be equally or more critical of armed vigilante action.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 21, 2019:

@Gerri4321 Nice try blustering your way out of this argument. I hear a lot about guns, not a lot about justifying pointing guns at people who aren't an invading army.

I would like to bring attention to not only the border patrol but the PATRIOTS who have taken upon ...

WilyRickWiles comments on Apr 20, 2019:

I have many issues with this, but I'll focus on one of them. If you elevate crossing the border outside of a port of entry to the level of a serious crime, you should be equally or more critical of armed vigilante action.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 21, 2019:

@Gerri4321 Weak sauce...

History: Between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly 1 million and quite possibly as many as ...

Clammypollack comments on Apr 20, 2019:

Wrong. Only America enslaved people and it is our ‘original sin’. Just ask a leftist.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 21, 2019:

@Clammypollack I have a serious problem with the indentured servitude in Dubai, for example. But the difference between me and right wingers is that I don't assume that Muslims across the globe are fundamentally prone to such labor practices and I don't simultaneously see Dubai as a libertarian paradise.

History: Between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly 1 million and quite possibly as many as ...

Clammypollack comments on Apr 20, 2019:

Wrong. Only America enslaved people and it is our ‘original sin’. Just ask a leftist.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 21, 2019:

@CRBG I have a sincere question for you: is your morality completely relative to your perception of the morality of other groups of people?

I would like to bring attention to not only the border patrol but the PATRIOTS who have taken upon ...

WilyRickWiles comments on Apr 20, 2019:

I have many issues with this, but I'll focus on one of them. If you elevate crossing the border outside of a port of entry to the level of a serious crime, you should be equally or more critical of armed vigilante action.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 21, 2019:

@Tommy6915, @Gerri4321 Not seeing any replies that contradict me...

I would like to bring attention to not only the border patrol but the PATRIOTS who have taken upon ...

Juliann comments on Apr 20, 2019:

Yeah, until shots are fired and an innocent person is killed in the cross fire. Just because it’s our right to form militias doesn’t make it right to take the law in your own hands. We are a Nation of laws! This is vigilante mentality and will lead to anarchy if allowed to continue.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 21, 2019:

Exactly, @Juliann.

History: Between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly 1 million and quite possibly as many as ...

Clammypollack comments on Apr 20, 2019:

Wrong. Only America enslaved people and it is our ‘original sin’. Just ask a leftist.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 20, 2019:

@cRaZyTMG Interesting, I haven't seen someone use sarcasm to express what they literally believe before.

I would like to bring attention to not only the border patrol but the PATRIOTS who have taken upon ...

WilyRickWiles comments on Apr 20, 2019:

I have many issues with this, but I'll focus on one of them. If you elevate crossing the border outside of a port of entry to the level of a serious crime, you should be equally or more critical of armed vigilante action.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 20, 2019:

@James Show me where in US law this concept of national sovereignty exists.

I would like to bring attention to not only the border patrol but the PATRIOTS who have taken upon ...

WilyRickWiles comments on Apr 20, 2019:

I have many issues with this, but I'll focus on one of them. If you elevate crossing the border outside of a port of entry to the level of a serious crime, you should be equally or more critical of armed vigilante action.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 20, 2019:

@James What these vigilantes are doing is a criminal felony that impairs the rule of law.

I would like to bring attention to not only the border patrol but the PATRIOTS who have taken upon ...

WilyRickWiles comments on Apr 20, 2019:

I have many issues with this, but I'll focus on one of them. If you elevate crossing the border outside of a port of entry to the level of a serious crime, you should be equally or more critical of armed vigilante action.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 20, 2019:

@James Improper entry is a misdemeanor violation of civil immigration law. It's like getting a speeding ticket.

I would like to bring attention to not only the border patrol but the PATRIOTS who have taken upon ...

WilyRickWiles comments on Apr 20, 2019:

I have many issues with this, but I'll focus on one of them. If you elevate crossing the border outside of a port of entry to the level of a serious crime, you should be equally or more critical of armed vigilante action.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 20, 2019:

@James I would say that infringing upon another person's due process rights using armed force is more of a vigilante action than collectively marching down the street with a gun on your belt.

History: Between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly 1 million and quite possibly as many as ...

Clammypollack comments on Apr 20, 2019:

Wrong. Only America enslaved people and it is our ‘original sin’. Just ask a leftist.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 20, 2019:

Not true. It's also inaccurate to equate American slavery with Barbary slavery. American slavery was inherited and race-based. Barbary slavery was not either, and converting to Islam granted freedom to a slave.

Where are the Marxists Here? (Zizek vs. Peterson)

LLpea comments on Apr 20, 2019:

They couldn't afford the ticket price

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 20, 2019:

Sorry for the misleading title--just added some details: "Zizek asks Peterson to name one academic of the sort that he calls 'postmodern neomarxist' that is actually a Marxist."

Is this the New Feudalism?

WilyRickWiles comments on Apr 19, 2019:

If you're going to invoke feudalism, you should recognize that when the Constitution was written, the most feudal parts of the country were the slave plantations in the rural South. Many a compromise were made to appease them. People in rural areas also tend to own more land--a quality typical of ...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 19, 2019:

@purdyday Is farming the only labor that counts for anything?

Sure Ain't MAGA country...

An_Ominous comments on Apr 19, 2019:

Chicago is bucking to be the premiere destination for Riot Tourism.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 19, 2019:

@An_Ominous Oh, tell me more about this "riot." Funny that I live a mile away and you know more about it than I do.

Sure Ain't MAGA country...

An_Ominous comments on Apr 19, 2019:

Chicago is bucking to be the premiere destination for Riot Tourism.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 19, 2019:

Huh?

Church Burnings Are Escalating And It’s NO MISTAKE…It’s Satanic! - YouTube

WilyRickWiles comments on Apr 19, 2019:

I may be going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing he doesn't bring up the black churches that were recently burned in Louisiana. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/us/louisiana-black-church-fire-hate-crime.html

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 19, 2019:

@Con-Can Because recognizing racism is racism! I get it. But did he mention the churches in Alabama or just generally refer to Christian churches, while specifically pointing out a handful that fuel his conspiracy theory?

Trump supporters are going to have a hard time with this.

cRaZyTMG comments on Apr 19, 2019:

Like all good primates, he was just throwing his turds at them. The Buick is coming...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 19, 2019:

That's very true about the turd throwing. All Trump knows how to do is PR (the muddying the waters kind).

Is this the New Feudalism?

WilyRickWiles comments on Apr 19, 2019:

If you're going to invoke feudalism, you should recognize that when the Constitution was written, the most feudal parts of the country were the slave plantations in the rural South. Many a compromise were made to appease them. People in rural areas also tend to own more land--a quality typical of ...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 19, 2019:

@Clammypollack It still wouldn't be a pure democracy if you got rid of the electoral college.

Church Burnings Are Escalating And It’s NO MISTAKE…It’s Satanic! - YouTube

WilyRickWiles comments on Apr 19, 2019:

I may be going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing he doesn't bring up the black churches that were recently burned in Louisiana. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/us/louisiana-black-church-fire-hate-crime.html

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 19, 2019:

@bil2276 Also going to go out on a limb and guess that he spins a divisive conspiracy theory to tie together unrelated accidents when no leaps of logic are needed to divine the motivations for the churches that were burned down here at home.

Church Burnings Are Escalating And It’s NO MISTAKE…It’s Satanic! - YouTube

WilyRickWiles comments on Apr 19, 2019:

I may be going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing he doesn't bring up the black churches that were recently burned in Louisiana. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/us/louisiana-black-church-fire-hate-crime.html

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 19, 2019:

@bil2276 Re-read my comment. I was commenting on a likely omission by the maker of the video. I did not suggest that they were more important, only that his omission may reveal that he thinks white churches are more significant than black churches.

Frankfurt School, Critical Theory, and Destruction of the US and Europe [youtube.

cRaZyTMG comments on Apr 19, 2019:

This is how they got the children...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 19, 2019:

The radical theory that led to desegregation!

How much should someone's past influence something positive they've done in their life?

WilyRickWiles comments on Apr 19, 2019:

I think generally people are and should be willing to forgive a lot as long as you can demonstrate that you've changed and you understand why your past words or actions were wrong. Christian Piccoioini https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Picciolini and Derek Black ...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 19, 2019:

@LaylaLee22 Not sure what you're referring to, but I think you need to accept the bad with the good. Accept people in all of their complexity and within the context of the times. Try not to demonize but don't lionize either. Learn from their mistakes. Even Gandhi had flaws.

No collusion, no obstruction! So now the Dems can shut the hell up.

WilyRickWiles comments on Apr 18, 2019:

Except "collusion" wasn't a topic of the report and there were 10 failed attempts at obstruction...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 19, 2019:

@Clammypollack I believe that we can multitask. And it would be a shame if the Democrats didn't keep hammering at Trump after all those years of Benghazi investigations.

Frankfurt School, Critical Theory, and Destruction of the US and Europe [youtube.

WilyRickWiles comments on Apr 18, 2019:

As the rationalwiki article notes, the influence and intent of the Frankfurt School is distorted and overblown by right-wing conspiracy theorists. I'd argue that the neoliberal Mont Pelerin Society and nativist and conservative organizations like the John Birch Society have had more influence and...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 19, 2019:

@MarPep You seem to be a true believer and see anything that does not promote traditional values as "communist."

Frankfurt School, Critical Theory, and Destruction of the US and Europe [youtube.

WilyRickWiles comments on Apr 18, 2019:

As the rationalwiki article notes, the influence and intent of the Frankfurt School is distorted and overblown by right-wing conspiracy theorists. I'd argue that the neoliberal Mont Pelerin Society and nativist and conservative organizations like the John Birch Society have had more influence and...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 19, 2019:

@MarPep My mistake--I was using JBS as a stand-in for the general conservative movement. I couldn't think of another foundational institution, though there were certainly connections between different conservative figures and institutions around that time. Nevertheless, JBS certainly picked up the ball from McCarthy, even if they didn't originate McCarthyism.

Frankfurt School, Critical Theory, and Destruction of the US and Europe [youtube.

WilyRickWiles comments on Apr 18, 2019:

As the rationalwiki article notes, the influence and intent of the Frankfurt School is distorted and overblown by right-wing conspiracy theorists. I'd argue that the neoliberal Mont Pelerin Society and nativist and conservative organizations like the John Birch Society have had more influence and...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 19, 2019:

@MarPep MPS was a reaction to the emergence of social democracy. It produced neoliberal and market fundamentalist ideas that have led to less democracy and more inequality in the world. JBS was a similar reaction to the civil rights movement. It produced McCarthyism and the nativism that has taken over today's Republican Party. It is very selective in the parts of the Constitution it supports. Its values have more in common with feudalism than liberalism.

No collusion, no obstruction! So now the Dems can shut the hell up.

WilyRickWiles comments on Apr 18, 2019:

Except "collusion" wasn't a topic of the report and there were 10 failed attempts at obstruction...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 18, 2019:

@Clammypollack I may have been a little pedantic. Still, there were some intriguing contacts and parallel, if not coordinated activities. And I understand there are some ongoing matters that may complicate the claim of "no collusion," e.g., the Roger Stone case.

Her type of reform we don't want...

WilyRickWiles comments on Apr 18, 2019:

Yeah I guess we should just be OK with this level of accountability for police https://cpdp.co and a justice system that frames the innocent.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 18, 2019:

@cRaZyTMG She has been doing things to fix that, which is why I support her. The Fraternal Order of Police (police union) has been fighting her tooth and nail, which is why I see the JS thing as overblown. I err on the side of being less punitive, even when celebrities are involved.

Her type of reform we don't want...

WilyRickWiles comments on Apr 18, 2019:

Yeah I guess we should just be OK with this level of accountability for police https://cpdp.co and a justice system that frames the innocent.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 18, 2019:

@cRaZyTMG I was replying to "Her type of reform we don't want." Wasn't referring to shoplifters. I'm not sure why you even brought them up or what you based that on. I'm not obsessed with JS. I'm of a mind with mayor-elect Lori Lightfoot: it "Doesn't rank as a matter of any importance to me."

Thoughts on the John Birch Society?

WilyRickWiles comments on Apr 17, 2019:

My grandfather was a member. I remember him buying my Mom a copy of The New World Order by Pat Robertson, which was just a warmed over Protocols of the Elders of Zion. JBS was a founding institution of the conservative movement. It began in the midst of McCarthyist hysteria and grew to influence...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 18, 2019:

@Serg97 Would you care to indulge me?

Hello, all! My name is Christopher, I live in Dallas, and I used to be pretty left leaning.

FrankZeleniuk comments on Apr 17, 2019:

Well, it's good you are looking through a different lens now then previously. Even as late as Obama it was not acceptable to be thought of as a socialist. Obama never admitted to being one. But he certainly embraced some socialist concepts that he expressed, such as, the redistributon of wealth and ...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 17, 2019:

Don't forget Elizabeth Pipko and the #Jexodus movement!

The line keeps moving politically, the left moves to the edge of the line they create and then push ...

WilyRickWiles comments on Apr 17, 2019:

First, try to better understand your adversary.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 17, 2019:

@chuckpo NOTE: I've scrambled the questions around a bit **okay. So, who is her adversary?** I assumed her adversary to be either liberals, socialists, or academics, so I addressed all of them. **Without accusing the right of anything** I think I mostly avoided accusing the right of anything, though I did get a light jab in at nativists. **What kind of world are you seeing when you're pushing the things you describe?** I think this is what I focused on in my original reply. **can you put who you are and what you're trying to get in the world? Can you give us some idea who you--as an adversay--are?** I may have dodged saying what my personal politics are, but if you read between the lines you'll probably see that it lies somewhere between liberal and socialist. My worldview and my frame of what I believe is legitimate US politics is based on the philosophies behind liberalism and socialism. I realize now that you may have been more interested in what material things I want, but ultimately the things I want most are intangible. I want to learn, create, engage in community with people, travel, and make the world better. I am fortunate to have enough income and savings to take care of my basic necessities (I wish government did more to provide a baseline for those less fortunate), I've been saving enough to have a comfortable retirement, and I now want to find ways to reclaim my time, receive a greater share of the fruits of my labor, and find more community. And I want to minimize the exploitation caused by my choices and not be party to systemic injustices. **Do you want equality of opportunity?** I did touch on a socialist concept of equality, but I did not say what my personal view was or really get into the liberal take. This could get thorny so maybe I'll come back to it later. **People can't know the adversary if the adversary is unwilling to get past all of the political noise and have a conversation.** My intent was to provide the perspectives of a liberal, a socialist, and an academic so that an outsider could better understand where they're coming from and have that kind of conversation. I believe that most people are well-intentioned, but everyone has blind spots. **I believe on this path, we start seeing the human beings behind the rivalry charade.** I'm not sure what your politics or OP's politics are, so please don't take this personally, but I see a few things that would be obstacles with a large number of people in this community. The first one is nativist* discrimination. Civility takes a huge hit when one party wishes or votes harm upon entire groups of people, especially when constitutionally problematic. The other side of the coin, but not nearly morally equivalent in my opinion, is SJW outrage and identity ...

Thoughts on the John Birch Society?

WilyRickWiles comments on Apr 17, 2019:

My grandfather was a member. I remember him buying my Mom a copy of The New World Order by Pat Robertson, which was just a warmed over Protocols of the Elders of Zion. JBS was a founding institution of the conservative movement. It began in the midst of McCarthyist hysteria and grew to influence...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 17, 2019:

@mcoulter What I mean is that their values are of the feudal, nativist variety (e.g., tradition, property, and family) that preceded those of the Constitution (liberty and equality before the law). Their opposition to the civil rights movement certainly revealed their disagreement with equality before the law. They're not big on church-state separation. They're an instrument of aristocratic power, which is not in keeping with the revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries. And their conspiracy theories aren't grounded in the reason of the Enlightenment that produced the Constitution.

Ilhan Omar said "frankly, I’m tired of it, and every single Muslim in this country should be tired...

shj648 comments on Apr 15, 2019:

If she's so tired she should leave the US, why bother coming anyways if the US is such a horrible place?

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 17, 2019:

@Chicago You're not making any sense, dude. Read the Constitution.

Ilhan Omar said "frankly, I’m tired of it, and every single Muslim in this country should be tired...

shj648 comments on Apr 15, 2019:

If she's so tired she should leave the US, why bother coming anyways if the US is such a horrible place?

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 17, 2019:

@Chicago Uhh, read the evidence that I already posted.

Hey look! A place that's not being monitored by authoritarians! Where? (everyone swings head)

Boardwine comments on Apr 17, 2019:

SShhhhh......they'll hear you.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 17, 2019:

Too late.

The line keeps moving politically, the left moves to the edge of the line they create and then push ...

WilyRickWiles comments on Apr 17, 2019:

First, try to better understand your adversary.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 17, 2019:

@chuckpo I think this might get at your questions. Liberalism largely appeals to people because it is the predominant political philosophy in the world, it seems to work better than anything else that has been tried, it is more liberatory than what preceded it (e.g., feudalism), it is validated by the Constitution, and it is what makes capitalism work. It endlessly upends traditions in order to generate more profits. You can't have global capitalism if there isn't a shared professional class culture and consumer base across nations. Hence multiculturalism. The success of multiculturalism, meritocracy, and markets is part of the everyday reality of the professional class. They are so career driven that they take that success as a given and become somewhat disengaged from politics, recoiling at nativist backlash, blinded from class differences, and trying to impose the elite values of the workplace (their version of common sense) on the entirety of public life. Nevertheless, they feel a civic commitment rooted in republicanism to provide social insurance to help the poor and to some degree seek to prevent inequality from reconstituting an aristocracy. Socialism might appeal to a person because they are alienated at the atomization of society under capitalism. I imagine that a nativist might respond to that same alienation by retreating to real or imagined ethnic or religious communities. Just as liberals before them upended the aristocracy, socialists want to upend the professional class and the remnants of the aristocracy, therefore leveling class differences. Moreover, they want to democratize the workplace so that they can be freed to pursue their creative impulses, enjoy the direct fruits of their labor, bring their whole selves into their work, and realize a genuine sense of community among their coworkers and neighbors. This would be a world where people treat each other as ends rather than means, to paraphrase Kant, where one's relationships in the workplace where they spend most of their lives wouldn't be restricted or made problematic by power differentials. They seek solidarity with all people. There are of course many grades in between liberalism and socialism as described. And keep in mind that there are moral and economic philosophies that support these forms of politics, just as there is for the brand of right-wing libertarianism that might be more popular around here. If I were OP, the first thing I would probably do is read Wikipedia articles about the entire spectrum of political philosophies and their shared history. I would also spend some time grappling with things like ethnic and gender studies. Such fields are influential not necessarily because they are rooted in fundamental truths but because they give us language to ...

The line keeps moving politically, the left moves to the edge of the line they create and then push ...

WilyRickWiles comments on Apr 17, 2019:

First, try to better understand your adversary.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 17, 2019:

@chuckpo Interesting reply, I will give this some thought and try to reply later.

Modern Monetary Theory, explained - Vox

FrankZeleniuk comments on Apr 17, 2019:

I hate reading articles on economics, especially explaining economic theory, by people who haven't yet grasped the basics of economics. It was painful to read that article.

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 17, 2019:

Hey, at least they clearly summarised the debate, which is the most important thing for laypeople, and linked to original sources. Any commentary on the theory itself?

Modern Monetary Theory, explained - Vox

CRBG comments on Apr 17, 2019:

Help me understand this: Instead of raising taxes to pay for social programs, they're proposing printing more money? Printing more money will simply make the value of the dollar tank. The only reason countries like Lebanon and Zimbabwe are using the US dollar instead of their own currency is that...

WilyRickWiles replies on Apr 17, 2019:

@Notestine We crossed that bridge long ago. Nevertheless, I'm wondering if it wasn't so much printing money but some other economic imbalance that was the issue with the Roman Empire. That was also before industrialization, globalization, and fully fiat currency.