I think that's the road we're going down. When a document means anything you want it to mean, it really means nothing at all. I also have trust in the democratic process and don't think we need judges steering our progress based upon what really amounts to matters of their conscience.

The Constitution protects a person's liberty. Is it preposterous to rule (as the Supreme Court did in Roe vs Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey) that the choice to have an abortion is a liberty, and if so why? It's not as if the Constitution actually provides an exhaustive list of what it means by the term — Michael

If the list of liberties did include abortion, why was it illegal in every state upon ratification of the 14th Amendment, which uses the term "liberty" you're relying upon? When the 13th Amendment was ratified, the slaves actually became free. Why didn't abortion stop upon passage of the 14th? Likely because it didn't mean that?

And to be clear, the right to liberty that was found in the 14th Amendment isn't some generalized notion of the right to abortion, but it is a complex system of rights divided by trimester, where one has lesser rights to abort each trimester and the state has greater rights to regulate as each 3 month period elapses. That is a bit preposterous. In fact, it sure sounds like judicial legislation. I would suspect that if pre Roe v. Wade we put 100 legal scholars in separate rooms and asked them to determine if there were a Constitutional right to abortion and, if so, to set it out, none would have come up with the reasoning and three trimester system found in Roe v. Wade.

A little of both. The US Constitution is our touchstone. Its the oldest constitution in the world because of the flexibility we allow in interpretation.

If we get rigid about it we'll lose it. — frank

I don't know what it means to lose the Constitution, as if one day we'll just stop reading it. A real way for a document to lose meaning is to make it mean whatever you want it to mean. If you're not going to really pay attention to the words, but you're going to just make if do whatever you can't get the legislature to do for you, then the words become meaningless.

Conflating the Constitution with morality is most assuredly a right-wing position, brought on primarily through the vacuous 'Originalist' interpretation on the Constitution which would shackle this Nation to the 18th century. — Maw

I was saying the left conflates the Constitution with liberty, not concerning themselves with the actual words of the document, but instead it's generalized meaning. If a statute were passed in the 18th century, wouldn't we be bound by the words they used at the time? It's not like we can't change the words if the times have changed, but if we don't, then it sure seems we're always going to be stuck with what we said when we said it.

Where does your copy of the Constitution speak of the right to abortion?
Why should I be required to fund a union that sends part of that money to political candidates I don't support?
Why does the government have the right to limit the way free speech is funded?

Should a Justice worry about the outcome of the decisions when he or she decides, or should he or she just decide based upon the Constitution says? The word "Constitutional" has been twisted by the left to mean "moral," and then the debate centers on such questions as "how would you like it if a woman were forced to have a baby she didn't want" and the like. Let us assume it would be horribly immoral to force such a pregnancy to term, granting all of your points as valid, how does that make it unconstitutional unless you really just mean immoral? I don't hear you arguing vehemently that the penumbra of the Bills of Rights demands the legality of abortion (The Roe v. Wade reasoning), largely because it's preposterous. You see no problem with slapping down a rule just because you think it's right even though the Constitution says nothing about it?

And let us assume you have some other far reaching way of interpreting the Constitution, you can't see any legitimacy in someone else disagreeing with that approach and actually insisting upon looking at the document?

The self is an illusion, and it is an illusion that you create. — Bitter Crank

Isn't "you" synonymous with "your self" in this sentence, making it self contradictory?

My post was just a kind reminder that the extraordinary moments in the political cycle that are viewed as heartbreaking by one side are viewed gleefully by the other.

The Court has too much unchecked power, but I do take great comfort in knowing that we will have a long conservative era where now young children will be able to live out most of their formative years without being subjected to liberal jurisprudence. The Trump legacy is now indelibly marked on a generation. The Republican blockade of Obama's attempt to select a justice is now appearing all the more brilliant and all the more important.

As to the first part, should we hold the President to the same standard as an actor? — Benkei

Trump didn't say "Fuck De Niro" though. His comments have been less than that.

Second, there's a qualitative difference between racist and mysogynistic comments Trump has made and the sort of crassness De Niro showed. — Benkei

What about what Maher said?

I do agree however that it's entirely likely the reactions to a Fuck Obama would have been different. On the other hand, no white president is going to get shit about his birth certificate either. So it seems the Left and the Right throw different types of insults at each other. — Benkei

I never thought the birther movement was racist. I thought it was stupid, but I'd have expected the same had Hillary's birthplace been suspect for some reason.

I've heard this what-aboutism so many times and it's just boringly easy to refute. I mean do you really think comparing a person of black heritage to an ape with the express intent of belittling them is the same as accidentally referring to yourself, not a black person, as a house n**** as a joke? Really? — Baden

The joke would be outrageous if Rush Limbaugh was asked to do some menial task and he responded by saying he was a house N and he wasn't fit for the fields. It's not funny. It references a horrible episode in American history where black people were divided into subgroups where those who had more European features (most notably skin tone) were permitted the better work in the house and the blacker ones were left out in the field. Hilarious Rush! You're too white to do that work. Yeah, good one.

So, you can't generalize without taking into account the behaviour of the target. Obama, whatever you say about him, and I don't like him either, was no Trump when it came to how he expressed himself. And would you be upset, for example, if a Republican said "Fuck the Ayatollah". I mean, does this apply to every target? Are we not justified in saying "Fuck X" publicly ever? In this case I don't support it, I think it was counterprocuctive, but I wouldn't rule it out tout court as being a legitimate form of protest. — Baden

Again, sit on what you consider to be your logical distinctions all you want, but every time it happens, you further polarize. The right does not buy into your distinctions, and candidly, neither do I. It pushes me more toward voting for Trump actually.

My point is that you've got to look at the practical application of these things and worry less about some academic distinction you want to make. If, for example, black people didn't care about being called cotton pickers, then such comments wouldn't be outrageous. They'd be just as logically offensive, but to be truly offensive, you have to actually have that emotion. By the same token, if it is the case that the right is being offended by the application of what they perceive as a double standard, it's of limited relevance whether they ought logically be offended. The simple truth is that they are, so stop it. If you think it's fair game to say "Fuck Trump," but you scream and yell at "Fuck Obama" (despite you're personally thinking he's less offensive than Trump), you're going to continue to insult the right. If that's what you wanted to do anyway, then have at it, but don't expect any great respect back at you.

I've refuted it not rationalized it. But feel free to try to rebut. I honestly don't think you have much on this one. — Baden

And I've refuted you and don't think you have much on this one. In fact, I think you're just hanging on to your argument because you feel you've already invested in it so you won't let go. Not really, but those are the sorts of things you like to say.

That's partly why Occupy failed — Baden

Occupy failed because sleeping in a park doesn't do shit.

Outrage should be employed to a significant degree to the extent the offender is part of the prevalent power structure. — Baden

This is a rationalization for a double standard and it breeds contempt. The right very much feels that they are being held to a much higher standard than the left, all under the specious argument that the left is properly fighting the man yet the right is the man. The right doesn't consider itself the one in power, but instead sees the power being in the hands of the left in terms of setting the agenda and determining what is proper conduct in public.

Roseanne Barr said what she said and is removed from civil society. Bill Maher, when told by a Senator he could help work the Senator's fields in Nebraska said, "Work in the fields? Senator, I’m a house n*****.” And after some feigned outrage just to be fair, Maher wakes up to work as usual. Suppose a former Trump advisor said that?

And moving from racism to crassness and anti-intellectualism, Trump says all the nonsense he says and the left is outraged, yet De Niro hijacks an awards show and says "Fuck Trump" and receives a standing ovation. How about if someone said "Fuck Obama" at the country music awards and everyone stood up and cheered? No big deal?

You can rationalize the double standard all you want, but what you end up doing is further polarizing. I'd even say that a large part of the right's embracing of Trump is his refusal to play by the left's rules of conduct. If you want to make sure that there are future Trumps, keep arguing that the right isn't allowed to be outraged and that the left has the right to speak more openly than the right. Next thing you know they'll elect another Trump to prove you wrong.

Edward Hopper - Room in New York.

Hanover has argued that the white supremacist take-over of the 1890s was nothing more than a re-emergence of native racism. It was more than that. The south had been economically and psychically ailing prior to this event in much the same way Germany was ailing after its WW1 defeat. — frank

The Southern economy was dependent upon slavery. But for the slaves, the great wealth in the plantation south wouldn't exist and they'd suffer the same abject poverty of the Appalachian south. The southerners knew that and that's why they fought so hard to keep slavery. They were fighting to preserve their way of life. Unlike the Nazis who scapegoated Jews for their economic failures, the South wanted to preserve their slave class to maintain their wealth. Part of that system required they consider blacks subhuman, something that didn't end with the end of slavery.

"There was great wealth in the South, but it was primarily tied up in the slave economy. In 1860, the economic value of slaves in the United States exceeded the invested value of all of the nation's railroads, factories, and banks combined. On the eve of the Civil War, cotton prices were at an all-time high. The Confederate leaders were confident that the importance of cotton on the world market, particularly in England and France, would provide the South with the diplomatic and military assistance they needed for victory."

https://www.nps.gov/resources/story.htm%3Fid%3D251
and
"If the Confederacy had been a separate nation, it would have ranked as the fourth richest in the world at the start of the Civil War. The slave economy had been very good to American prosperity. By the start of the war, the South was producing 75 percent of the world’s cotton and creating more millionaires per capita in the Mississippi River valley than anywhere in the nation. Slaves represented Southern planters’ most significant investment—and the bulk of their wealth."

https://www.nps.gov/resources/story.htm%3Fid%3D251

Yes. I guess I downplayed white supremacy between 1865 and 1890 because I was focusing more on the dramatic change in black votership and the violent enforcement of segregation laws that started then. I think what most people are talking about when they mention Jim Crow is actually stuff that started in the 1890s. — frank

I don't know why you insist upon this incorrect recitation of history to make your strained point that Trump is a racist agitator like what existed in the Reconstruction South. The South was overtly racist prior to and after the war. They treated blacks as chattel. They fought to the last breath to save their racist institution and then they endured the North's efforts to protect the newly freed blacks only try to reinstitute white supremacy after the North left. There were Jim Crow type laws immediately after the Civil War (1865 and 1866) and the abuses surely escalated after the North stopped supervising the South's progress. The South didn't need prodding to be racist. They already were. In fact, politicians that favored black's rights were subject to abuse and even murder at the hands of the citizens. All of this is to say that Jim Crow was not the result of select racist agitators, but was just a continuation of the racism that existed in the South for literally hundred of years.

You, on the other hand, haven't admitted any of the multitude of errors you've made since we started this conversation. :meh: — frank

And this would be relevant if the purpose of this conversation was one upsmanship.

I'm guessing that as a result of overuse by liberals of the term "Nazi" to refer to Republicans, you have a cognitive filter on the word. So as I try to explain to you that some of what Trump is doing is reminiscent of Nazi tactics and echoes white supremacist voices in American history, I get filtered out. True? — frank

I don't filter it out. I just appreciate it as offensive hyperbole. No one really believes that Trump is preparing gas chambers, and those who use the term "Nazi" to refer to Trump really don't appreciate how offensive that is to those who find the abuses wrought by the Nazis incomparable.

It wasn't until the 1890s that they finally had widespread success in taking over state governments in the south. — frank

"Though Congress passed legislation designed to curb Klan terrorism, the organization saw its primary goal–the reestablishment of white supremacy–fulfilled through Democratic victories in state legislatures across the South in the 1870s. ...


By 1870, the Ku Klux Klan had branches in nearly every southern state. Even at its height, the Klan did not boast a well-organized structure or clear leadership. Local Klan members–often wearing masks and dressed in the organization’s signature long white robes and hoods–usually carried out their attacks at night, acting on their own but in support of the common goals of defeating Radical Reconstruction and restoring white supremacy in the South. Klan activity flourished particularly in the regions of the South where blacks were a minority or a small majority of the population, and was relatively limited in others. Among the most notorious zones of Klan activity was South Carolina, where in January 1871 500 masked men attacked the Union county jail and lynched eight black prisoners."

https://www.history.com/topics/ku-klux-klan

The significance of the year is that it contradicts Frank's narrative that Reconstruction was effective but some Trump-like instigators appeared and set things back. What really happened is that the racism, hate, and views on white supremacy never abated, but were stifled temporarily and incompletely due to the presence of federal troups. Once they left, the white supremacy behavior that had existed for 100s of years continued forward unchecked.

Yes. The events you're talking about inspired northern Republicans to come down and secure the rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. They were successful enough that, as I said, black votership became high, blacks were starting businesses and accumulating wealth. Blacks and whites did associate in and out of the workplace. — frank

No, it was not those events that sparked Republicans to come to the South to secure the rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. They had already come to the South. That period was known as Reconstruction and it went from 1863 to 1877, meaning it began immediately following the war.

"The Reconstruction era was the period from 1863 (the Presidential Proclamation of December 8, 1863) to 1877. In the context of the American history, the term has two applications: the first applies to the complete history of the entire country from 1865 to 1877 following the American Civil War; the second, to the attempted transformation of the 11 ex-Confederate states from 1863 to 1877, as directed by Congress. Reconstruction ended the remnants of Confederate nationalism and of slavery, making the newly free slaves citizens with civil rights apparently guaranteed by three new Constitutional amendments. Three visions of Civil War memory appeared during Reconstruction: the reconciliationist vision, which was rooted in coping with the death and devastation the war had brought; the white supremacist vision, which included terror and violence; and the emancipationist vision, which sought full freedom, citizenship, and Constitutional equality for African Americans.[2]

Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson both took moderate positions designed to bring the South back into the Union as quickly as possible, while Radical Republicans in Congress sought stronger measures to upgrade the rights of African Americans, including the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, while curtailing the rights of former Confederates, such as through the provisions of the Wade–Davis Bill. Johnson, a former Tennessee Senator and former slave owner, followed a lenient policy toward ex-Confederates. Lincoln’s last speeches show that he was leaning toward supporting the enfranchisement of all freedmen, whereas Johnson was opposed to this.[3]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_era

That all changed in the 1890s. I wish I could give you the title of a good history, but the course I took on it mostly involved primary sources. If you look, you will find, though. — frank

You've never cited a single source for any of your posts and you continually refer to the 1890s for the proposition that the South changed courses then. It simply didn't happen that way. There were black code laws (predecessors to Jim Crow laws) immediately following the war and the Klan came to power very soon thereafter ( well before the 1890s).

The narrative you're trying to create simply did not occur. What I'm understanding you're trying to say is that the South was a thriving and open multi-cultural place until some Trump like character invaded and turned it into a racist nightmare.

What actually happened is that the South had firm roots in English classism and elitism since colonial times, with there being no more important distinction than being white. The entire culture and economy was based upon white supremacy. When Lincoln won the election, the South realized that it's way of life was in serious jeopardy, so they seceded. That then resulted in a war where it looked like the South was ready to fight to the last man standing in order to preserve their system of white supremacy. The South lost the war. The North then instituted reconstruction policies to bring the South back into the union and it embittered the southerners to no end, especially with regard to attempts to make blacks equals. Reconstruction resulted in some temporary gains for blacks, but they were very tenuous and the backlash was brutal and it began immediately, not in 1890. Finally the North left the South to its own devices and it wasn't actually until 1964 when real federal legislation was passed and enforced guaranteeing real rights to black people. That period (the Civil Rights era) was a period of great turbulence, where again there was southern resistance to the African American rights. Again, there weren't just a few rabble rousers out there stirring up an otherwise gentle, loving population. The culture was steeped in white supremacy. I just see no correlation between what happened in the South (organically grown racism over 100s of years to support an economic and social system) and Trump, a single individual who has extreme views on immigration policy.

Your cautionary tale of "you better be careful with Trump or else we might one day have another uprising like we did in the 1890s" simply does not logically follow.

The Klan was not active in the 1890s when white supremacists violently took over the Southeast. Black votership in the south was 40-70% prior and 3% post. It became illegal for blacks and whites to eat at the same restaurants or work side by side (which they had been doing previously).

Blacks were making progress in establishing businesses, accumulating wealth, discovering some degree of influence through politics, etc. All that came to an end in the 1890s. — frank

From the Wiki article on the Klan:

"In the April 1868 Georgia gubernatorial election, Columbia County cast 1,222 votes for Republican Rufus Bullock. By the November presidential election, Klan intimidation led to suppression of the Republican vote and only one person voted for Ulysses S. Grant.[67]"

"During 1867-69 the Klan murdered Republicans and outspoken freedmen in the south, including Arkansas Congressman James M. Hinds."

This and the prior cite make the obvious clear:

"Though Congress passed legislation designed to curb Klan terrorism, the organization saw its primary goal–the reestablishment of white supremacy–fulfilled through Democratic victories in state legislatures across the South in the 1870s."
There was white racism before the war. Reconstruction reduced it. The backlash over those policies reestablished it. Your timeline of events is entirely wrong and your suggestion that a band of racists appeared and upset an otherwise progressive population is wrong. What happened was that the federal government was incapable of regulating the conduct of the prior southern power brokers and they therefore could not enforce their policies long term.

And this: since his campaign, a lot of Trump's themes have been almost identical to the messages of white supremacists in the 1890s: the concentration on bringing back greatness, and the preoccupation with crimes committed by latinos. Did you know that? — frank

Trump wants to regulate immigration, not force Mexicans to the back of buses.

Jim Crow was a result of an event that started in the 1890s. How do you live in Atlanta and you don't know what happened? You're oblivious to the history of your own home. — frank

"Jim Crow law, in U.S. history, any of the laws that enforced racial segregation in the South between the end of Reconstruction in 1877 and the beginning of the civil rights movement in the 1950s." https://www.britannica.com/event/Jim-Crow-law

The experienced Republicans around Lincoln asked him to give a speech advocating an amendment that would permanently protect slavery in the south. — frank

We talked past each other here. I asked why he'd advocate for the 13th Amendment (prohibiting slavery) prior to the war, which is what I thought you said.

You're ignorant of large swaths of it. — frank

A wasteful and inaccurate comment.

In regard to Jim Crow, I'm realizing something. Every time the issue of white supremacy comes up, I think of how they violently took over the south in the 1890s. You're a Republican, but you dont know about that. So when a Democrat expresses concern about American nazis, you think they're just being ridiculous. — frank

You make it sound like the Jim Crow era ushered in racism. The same hate existed prior to Reconstruction. Blacks were slaves previously, and there were racist laws immediately after the war (black codes) which resulted in stricter reconstructionist policies. The backlash was to the Reconstructionist policies.

The Klan was founded in 1866 and was controlling legislatures by 1870. https://www.history.com/topics/ku-klux-klan . Your account seems to be that the South fully embraced Reconstruction until a few rabble rousers disrupted it. It was more like the same hate existed before and after Appomattox but was only temporarily stifled by Reconstruction.

No idea what you're talking about with regard to American Nazis. I'm opposed to Nazis in all forms.

1. There isn't ambiguity over the reason the EP was issued. Your current allowance for my explanation is in stark contrast to your initial comment, which was an incredulous "what?"
2. I'm somewhat familar with Jim Crow laws, not just what I've read, but from personal accounts, considering they aren't exactly ancient history.
3. Your prior comment made no sense, which is that Lincoln was being pursuaded to pass the 13th Amendment to avoid war. He came into office after the South seceded, meaning an Amendment would have had no effect on the South. His desire for the Amendment came much later, well after he changed the basis of the war to be to end slavery.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog

Your histrionics over what you perceive to be inaccurate recitations of historical facts subtracts from this discussion. If I've got something wrong, educate me and offer me a cite. That's the point of this place.

What? The British gave aid to the Confederacy. They were fully aware that the point of the Confederacy was to become an independent slave nation, and they would have barreled over the Atlantic playing Rule Britannia to preside over a ceremony to permanently divide their former colonies, EP or not. — frank

England could not intervene in the war once the EP was issued because by potraying the war as about slavery and not protecting the union, England could not support the South.

"When the Civil War became about slavery -- not just union -- Great Britain could not morally recognize the South or intervene in the war. To do so would be diplomatically hypocritical." www.thoughtco.com/emancipation-proclamation-was-also-foreign-policy-3310345

It's basic stuff: https://www.readthespirit.com/ourvalues/wait-abe-lincoln-wait-free-slaves/

The delay of issuing the EP until after Antietam was to assure it was on the heels of a victory (however slight) and it assured lack of negotiation with England and France as diplomatic rules forbade negotiating with those states incapable of consistently protecting their borders. Very basic stuff. But keep arguing. Whatever. Look it up.

We see what they were really thinking when all the experienced politicians around Lincoln advised him to give a speech offering a constitutional amendment permanently protecting slavery in the South in order to avoid war. — frank

Secession occured after Lincoln's election but before his inaugaration. When was he going to argue for an Amendment? After the South seceded? My understanding is that he was fighting for an Amendment prior to the war's end, but I don't follow what you're saying here.

Your distinction is valid, and I'm willing to allow more racist comments (not just crass) with less drastic penalties than you. If one buys into the argument that more severe penalties will offer a greater detterent, then the solution will always be the most Draconian penalty imaginable. Again, justice requires proportionality.

Getting tossed from here is a bit less than destroying an entire career.

Why not shoot her in the head? The answer is proportionality, a concept we both agree with. It's not if, but how much. I say it's too much.

If you're suggesting, as it seems, something along the lines that only an African American can rightly have an opinion on this, then I would find that ludicrous, and unlike your usual levelheaded judgement. — Sapientia

I'm not saying that only an African American can have an opinion on this. In fact, I provided my opinion for whatever it was worth. The question is whether it's right for someone to be outraged, and it'd be very difficult for me to say that a black person is wrong to be outraged at certain comments, as if I know what emotion he feels. It's sort of like if I joked about fucking your mother, I can't really say it'd be wrong for you to be outraged, although if you said the same of mine, I wouldn't be outraged. Maybe you're from a particularly close family and greatly religious and such comments are just not funny to you. I really don't know what you've been through, so I do stand by what I said when I say that it's hard for me to condemn a black guy for being insulted about something I really don't think much about.

Judging the legitimacy of your emotive response requires that I be in your head and weigh your response against what a reasonable person would do given your experience.

And stop accusing me of levelheadedness. It will do nothing other than to curb my more entertaining opinions.

Watching that clip caused some degree of outrage in me. I think that what he said was wrong. And even if he said it unthinkingly, and didn't mean to cause offence, I still don't think that that would get him off the hook. People should be held responsible for the stupid and offensive shit they say. Trump should be held responsible. Roseanne should be held responsible. This bloke on Fox News should be held responsible. — Sapientia

I actually take a different approach. I think we ought stop disposing of people who cross these boundaries we set. People should be allowed to be more crass and vulgar without being completely ostracized. These rules we impose so harshly have not made the world the better place they've intended to. It's made the world harsher, meaner, unforgiving, and critical. I'm not saying we can just let everything go without responding, but I don't think Roseanne needed to be thrown in the garbage for her comments. No one is better off for that.

Justice without mercy is revenge.

Nothing you say is of substance here. You just say I'm right in some places and wrong in others and that you don't think what I said flows with the discussion. Yours is a pretty meaningless post.

Here's what you said:

Since Lincoln's decision to emancipate the slaves and provide citizenship for every black man was directly at odds with conventional wisdom, and in line with a tiny minority that was considered to be lunatic fringe, I'd love to know how he made that decision. All we can do is speculate. — frank

My point was (1) Lincoln didn't emancipate the slaves. He declared the slaves free in the areas where he had no jurisdiction. I also pointed out that it was the 13th Amendment that freed the slaves. (2) Lincoln's view to end slavery was not part of a lunatic fringe. It was mainstream and supported by a supermajority even in the US (thus the passage of the 13th Amendment) (3) Lincoln did not want to give blacks the full rights of citizenship, and in fact there remained Jim Crow laws some 100 years thereafter. (4) The reasons behind Lincoln's decision to present the EP is well documented and we need not resort to speculation. He presented it to end European meddling in the war and he specifically waited until an opportune time (specifically when the army of the Potomac was able to defend the capital following the battle of Antietam).

This strikes me as directly responsive to all the points in your post and your subsequent post strikes me as inability to respond.

However Trump's and Brexit's revitalization of Nazi type ideology would seem to suggest that currently social evolution is ebbing in the opposite direction, for the moment at least. — Marcus de Brun

The not so subtle distinction between Trump and Brexit is that in neither instance was there the systematic murder of a race of people. Comparing the two isn't clarifying hyperbole, but offensive ignorance, drowning whatever point you could possibly be intending to make. Trump isn't like Hitler. America is not like Nazi Germany. England is not like Nazi Germany. Obvious statements really, but for some reason you feel the need to disagree.

The following conversation has been moved from: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3516/nietzsches-thus-spoke-zarathustra

Since Lincoln's decision to emancipate the slaves and provide citizenship for every black man was directly at odds with conventional wisdom, and in line with a tiny minority that was considered to be lunatic fringe, I'd love to know how he made that decision. All we can do is speculate. — frank

At the time of the Civil War, Europe had long abandoned slavery and found it morally unacceptable. Lincoln's "emancipation" of the slaves was a political gesture, freeing only those slaves under the jurisdiction of the states in rebellion. If you look at the document, you will see that all the slaves within the northern states or in territories under control of the North were to remain slaves. The reason for that is that Lincoln lacked the power to decree anything over states not in rebellion as such would require an act of Congress (Lincoln submitted he had power under the Wars Power Clause to decree the property of the rebel states contraband (i.e. their slaves) and then to free them). The purpose of the Emancipation Proclamation was to end any hopes that the Confederacy would be permitted to negotiate peace with the help of Great Britain or France, the two world powers that would never negotiate with a state that promoted slavery. Prior to the EP, Lincoln was careful not to portray the war as one over slavery. The EP changed that and formally made the war one over slavery and it was done specifically to remove Great Britain's and France's involvement in the war.

The point of this is that the it was not a tiny minority that wanted to end slavery. It was the entire world minus the South and some small pockets among border states. Slavery did not end with the EP. It was the 13th Amendment that ended slavery, and that required a supermajority (not a tiny lunatic minority) of the states for passage.

The end of slavery did not end governmental institutionalized racism. That took almost 100 more years to happen. It was not envisioned at that moment in time that blacks would be treated in society just like white people. It was only envisioned that slavery would end.

Although not PC, I think that there was some beauty contained within the horror of Nazi ideology. This 'beauty' a love of social order, a rejection of religious power in favor of science pragmatism and logic, the power of the individual, before a subservience to creed, the subjugation of capitalism or the market to the service of the socialist state,. All of these ideals would to a greater or lesser degree have appealed to Nietzsche.
— Marcus de Brun

The problem with the Nazis is that central to their creed was that they held themselves the highest form of the human race, justifying eugenics, genocide, and any form of racism they chose. It wasn't an academic philosophy, but a political movement, and it resulted in the deaths of 10s of millions of people. It was as morally bankrupt of a "philosophy" as there ever was, and it is often rightfully used an example of evil. If one were looking for a more evil and failed position, it would be difficult.

The power and appeal of Nazi ideology in a political state-generating sense is that upon the basis of race it is inclusive of all members of a pure racial and physical cohort. Therefore it has mass appeal and contains within it the implication that members of said cohort are superior upon the basis of their race.

Nietzsche considered the individual 'thinking -man' the philosopher, as the superior being. For Nietzsche the 'quality' or 'purity' of the thinking-man's thought, is generally correlative to the degree that it differs from that of the collective, and thereby it contains an inherent rejection of almost all pre-existing and presently existing social orders. — Marcus de Brun

The problem with this post and all your posts in this thread is that it reeks of Nazi sympathizing, elevating Hitler to the role of an important philosopher and comparing Mein Kampf to Thus spoke Zarathustra, as if those two books deserve to sit on the same book shelf. The simple distinction between Hitler and Nietzsche is that Nietzsche related superiority to the content of one's character whereas Hitler based it on race, making Hitler a murdering racist and Nietzsche an important philosopher. Your attempt to intellectualize this simple distinction is nothing more than obfuscation, and it's for that reason I think my accusation that you are Nazi-sympathizing is unfortunately accurate (despite your token references to the horror of the movement).

It is like if I should tell you that the Klan had many good ideas if we could just distill away their racism and we could better appreciate their desire to protect the simple values of the South. That is, if we look closely, we'd realize that the Grand Imperial Wizard of the KKK is no different than Martin Luther King, Jr. in that both just want a productive peaceful society. MLK wants to achieve it though equality of all races whereas the KKK wants to achieve it through intimidation, oppressive laws, and nooses, but, at the end of the day, they are one in the same.

I do believe, though, in some degree of social Darwinism, and I am comforted by the fact that Nazism and the KKK have been relegated to the dustbin of failed and entirely idiotic movements, with only a few misfits still adhering to those viewpoints, many of whom fill our prisons.

I'm impressed, naturally, that you read about Andrew Young slamming Mondale aides and didn't call out of work to nurse your rage. But what's the point of that anecdote? Do you think its a scenario roughly equivalent to one tiff mentioned - only you reacted better? If not, then what's your point? — csalisbury

My point was (1) that I don't stand in the shoes of an African American so I won't begin to tell him how he ought to react, and (2) I've not found being outraged, offended, and insulted particularly useful in responding to morons, but, like you said, it's often difficult to control one's reactions to attacks. I also believe that some feign outrage as an effective tactic against outrageous conduct and it's just sort of an outrage game people play. Is that what happened in Tiff's example? I really don't know.

It's remotely possible that the guy is just so folksy that the term "cotton pickin" is just an innocuous way of saying "dang" or "dadgum" to him. More likely he was waiting to say it to create some controversy.

Do I think it's something to get outraged over? I won't tell an African American how he ought react. I do remember though when the good Jesse Jackson called NYC Hymie Town and when Andrew Young called Mondale's aides smart ass white boys. I was insulted neither time. It just lets me know their real opinions, as if I didn't already know.

Well, if they are at the shelter, then moving them into a slightly more comfortable spot isn't what's going to save their life.

And you know this is a false equivalence, and it's fucking hypocritical. — Akanthinos

The discussion was broad enough that it can be equivalent as you make it. In the context of Mexican immigration, it is equivalent. They are not refugees escaping torture or death in their homeland, but are looking for a more comfortable spot here in the US. That would make the analogy apt.

And on the other side of this, the homeless you've decided to describe are those that are slightly uncomfortable and will only receive something slightly better if housed with you. There are, though, homeless who are in desperate need of help that could be provided by you and that could save their life, yet you don't do it.

My point here isn't that you're a hypocrite for demanding that others offer aid to suffering immigrants while you allow similarly situated homeless people to suffer. Whether you're a hypocrite is irrelevant. What I challenge is the standard you imposed, which is that you claim it is highly immoral (i.e. you would be a "monster" for doing this) not to help all those in need who you could help. I don't accept that as a standard of morality because it requires an extreme altruism that is superhuman, not, as you suggest that those failing that degree of altruism are subhuman. I'm saying that it is moral to have more than an equal share of wealth and it is not required that you divide your fortunes, however humble, equally to those in need.

This isn't to say that a certain degree of charity isn't morally required, and I'd say most consider giving of one's self a requirement of being a good person, but there are limitations in what is expected of us. One standard often used among the religious in Western society is that of tithing, where 10% of one's wealth is offered as charity. That number is arbitrary to be sure, and I don't suggest it is the specific number that must be adhered to, but it does make the point that the how much question has been a point of issue for thousands of years. That is, we can be moral (and not be monsters) by limiting a distribution of our community resources by not opening up our borders to all comers, but by offering our charity in a limited, but still generous way.

Also, aren't you Jewish? Don't you have a very vivid historical reason not to piss on the 1951 Refugee Act and the status of asylum seeker? Yeah... :worry: — Akanthinos

This is an ad hom. If it is indeed hypocritical for me to reject immigrants today when my ancestors were immigrants (and that is a debatable hypothesis), then the best you could say is that I'm a hypocrite. Not wrong, just a hypocrite. This is just to point out that you're no longer debating, but just trying to be insulting.

At any rate, this is just a red herring by you, considering the immigration debate in the US is not over the refugee population of immigrants. The typical US immigrant is Mexican or Chinese and very few US immigrants are truly fleeing their nation of origin for fear of torture or death. If the US closed its borders to all but those who qualified under the refugee convention (which the US didn't enter into until 1967 by the way), immigration would be effectively shut down. If your position is that immigration be limited to only those who qualify as refugees, then your approach is indeed very conservative, and not in opposition to walls, increased border patrols, and other measures to contain the non-refugee immigration attempts.

Was the universe created by purpose or by chance?

The question has two possible outcomes so we should initially assign a 50% probability to each outcome. — Devans99

Well, the universe was either created by a rabbit or it wasn't, so 50% chance rabbit, 50% not rabbit. I get you don't think it was a rabbit, but please don't ridicule my belief in a rabbit diety because my chances of being right are equal to yours.

Start by examining the universes origins. The Big Bang. A huge explosion in space of a least 10^53 kg of matter that created the universe. Was this by chance or the work of a creator? I’ll conservatively assign a 50% probability to each outcome. Combining this probability with the initial staring probability:

50% + 50% x 50% = 75% chance of creator — Devans99

The problem with this complex math equation you've devised is that the chance of it being random chance is also 75%. We would have to add the 25% chance of the Big Bang being correct to the initial 50% as well. Both your possibilities are going to approach 100% the more you add to this, making the likelihood of either equally likely.

And yet you don't go down to the homeless shelter and bring as many home as will fit. Fucking monster.

Human beings of equal moral value should be free to move about the world to maximize
The value of their lives, as they define it. This freedom should only be limited by the inherent
conflicts of similar freedoms in others. The nature of a particular political border may or may
not be a moral entity to the extent it is justly or unjustly resolving the issues of just conflicts of inherent human freedoms from the equivalent human beings it separates. — Rank Amateur

Should someone be permitted to move into my house and sleep in my bed? As one of God's children of equal worth, why should my bed be reserved for me and they be required to sleep somewhere less comfortable? Should they then sleep in my bed, what right do I have then to kick them out and sleep there because I now am being deprived? It seems we have to establish somewhere some set of rules of who gets what, which means we need to start drawing boundaries around things and rules that govern who can cross those boundaries.

Now take it a step further. If you concede that I have the right to the confines of my home and my neighbors theirs, then surely we are free to decide how to share the space between our lands that might be jointly owned. Maybe we will decide to build a park located between ten of our homes that will be shared equally among us and we might arrive at a democratic method for how our common park will be maintained. Does an outsider now have the right to invade our common space but not our home?

What we can get closer to is agreement, not meaning. — Banno

But unlike a Platonic ideal, meaning exists as a real qualitative state, known by the person holding it. Agreement is therefore unilateral, where the holder of the idea assents to the reiteration of the meaning by the other person. Meaning is therefore primary and critical, existing prior to agreement (i.e. unilateral assent) and it forms the very basis of the agreement.

This understanding makes the qualitative state worthy of discussion (metaphysics) as does it make pre-lingual meaning relevant.

How does this affect your Wittgensteinian approach if accepted as true?

The "slave" aspect is failing to recognise value is about ourselves, instead thinking it is granted by something else, some otherworldly force-- quite literally "I am nothing. You (refering to the otherwordly force) have all power and definition of me." — TheWillowOfDarkness

The "otherworldly" you reference is a reference to the objective. That is, to say I have value means I do regardless of what anyone else says or agrees to.

When you tell me you have value, but you deny value is rooted in something other than your own assessment of value, then would you not lack value if you decided you did? If not, then where is this value that cannot be destroyed and is eternal? Wherever it is and whatever it is sounds godly.

When seeking meaning it's wise to look to use. — frank

Sure, but who disagrees with this? Is all we're saying now is that meaning isn't use, but use is just one thing to consider when trying to figure out what someone means?