responsibility can only be taken up voluntarily — Tzeentch

And I’m not disagreeing. We (as a people) can chose to be responsible.

Social constructs suggest a consensus and a collaboration, and I doubt such a thing has occurred. — NOS4A2

Well, I think for many today, to be a citizen of their country doesn't mean so much if anything. You can see it from the comments even here. But there is enough consensus about citizenship around: just try to go to another country that you need a visa without one (or passport). Outside of your country, you will be looked as an US Citizen, irrelevant how much you relate to being one.

One can understand the self-identification with a race, though, especially in America, where these distinctions have been pounded into our heads our whole lives, even after the unspooling of the human genome has discredited them. For many it was a matter of life and death. But nowadays it's just de rigueur. — NOS4A2

Even if it's a bit different in Latin America, it's the same problem in the continent. Class division has become a race division, which makes the issue so toxic. The correlation with poverty and races shows this. In Latin America it's quite obvious with the divide between the Native American (Indian) population and those that have European ancestry. And the Spanish caste system has made it as bad in Latin America.

How so? — frank

I don’t think you can claim to value liberty if you deny it to others.

I don’t think you can claim to value liberty if you deny it to others. — praxis

I agree. I was asking how the EP imposed responsibility by force.

The nation professes to value liberty and is therefore duty-bound to uphold it. Slavery isn't in accord with that duty so force must be used to stop it. The United States has never forced another nation to free its people because it's not duty-bound to do so. It's not responsible for the people of other nations. It's responsible for people who live within the nation.

What are you thinking?

I think when you said the EP imposed responsibility, you meant the government was taking responsibility for securing liberty.

In a way, that's true. :up:

I said that the EP and the civil war is an instance of responsibility being imposed by force. The majority of the people and government won, fortunately.

said that the EP and the civil war is an instance of responsibility being imposed by force. — praxis

I still don't know what that means

The majority of the people and government won, fortunately. — praxis

The EP was issued per the constitutional war power of the president. It was Lincoln's call. The rest of the government wasn't involved.

The only people who believed, like you, that the government was responsible for securing the freedom of slaves were abolitionists, about 3-5% of the white population.

Just prior to issuing the EP, Lincoln had taken a carriage ride with a prominent abolitionist named Charles Sumner. It's believed that the conversation they had convinced Lincoln to go ahead and issue the EP. It had been drawn up, waiting in his desk for two years.

The EP was issued per the constitutional war power of the president. It was Lincoln's call. The rest of the government wasn't involved. — frank

Granted it's unlikely the South would have ever won but if they did I don't think that Lincoln would have remained in power. But I see your point about the people.

Granted it's unlikely the South would have ever won but if they did I don't think that Lincoln would have remained in power. — praxis

? My point was that the opinion that the US government was responsible for freeing slaves was a rare one. A tiny minority believed that.

It was Lincoln's call. The rest of the government wasn't involved. — frank

All I'm saying is that the country was divided. Can we agree on that?

There was Lincoln up in Washington all by his lonely self and down south there was 'govament' also involved.

Am I really speaking in riddles? Nevermind.

I like donuts

There's also the dismissal of the white working class, the demonisation of dissent... — Isaac

I was just reading DeSanctimonious's new book and this seemed to click into place. In it he claims with emphatic repetition how the woke progressive elite ruling class that now dominates the nation (with the exception of Florida of course) looks down their nose at anyone who fails to uphold their pseudo-religious ideology.

Part of me hopes that he runs against Trump because the shitshow could be spectacular.

Exactly. And he might well gain a fair bit of support from it. Because the white working class do have a legitimate grievance if they're referred to as 'privileged' by folk with significantly more opportunity than they could even dream of.

So what could we do to prevent the nightmare of DeSantis? Or the next Trump?

We could actually address those grievances. Actually tackle poverty and in doing so alleviate both the white working class struggle, and a huge proportion of systemic racism (which is little more than that blacks are far more likely to be poor than whites)...

Or...

We could carry on trying to out-woke each other with the latest cause de jour and hope DeSantis goes away if we roll our eyes enough and sneeringly dismiss anyone who agrees with literally anything he says because we're too stupid to get past a brutish tribalism.

Which do you think will best serves the oppressed?

Exactly. And he might well gain a fair bit of support from it. Because the white working class do have a legitimate grievance if they're referred to as 'privileged' by folk with significantly more opportunity than they could even dream of. — Isaac

I’m no political analyst but one of DeSantis’ tactics seems to be redefining ‘elite’ to mean anyone, anyone with a pulse, who merely upholds the tyrannical woke progressive pseudo religious ideology in some way.

For the rest, I don’t see how either of your choices could prevent a DeSantis from gaining more power, if I’m honest. Trump and DeSantis don’t appeal to facts or reason. For politicians, on both sides of the aisle, who just want power and wealth it’s not in their interests to actually tackle the problems of the people.

I’m no political analyst but one of DeSantis’ tactics seems to be redefining ‘elite’ to mean anyone, anyone with a pulse, who merely upholds the tyrannical woke progressive pseudo religious ideology in some way. — praxis

Yep, that's certainly true.

Trump and DeSantis don’t appeal to facts or reason. For politicians, on both sides of the aisle, who just want power and wealth it’s not in their interests to actually tackle the problems of the people. — praxis

I didn't say anything about facts or reason. Nor anything about Trump/DeSantis tackling poverty.

I'm asking you what you think is most likely to prevent either getting into power (which would undoubtedly be devastating). Who is most likely to carry another Republican victory (or centre right Democrat victory - there's barely a hair's breadth between them)? Is it workers with jobs, decent pay, secure homes and prospects? Or is it workers with none of that, but who are in no doubt how privileged they are to be white?

I don’t know how to answer that because the problems or grievances you mention won’t be solved any time soon. In fact I think they’re likely to only deepen. I can’t decipher what you’re trying to say about wokeness. That it only distracts or leads to complacency? Why not just say what you mean?

Why not just say what you mean? — praxis

I'm only replying out of courtesy. I see the mods have moved this thread to the Lounge. It's clearly not the place for laying out anything operose. I thought I'd been clear, but if not, we'll let it be now the discussion is a non-serious one.

I’ve exhausted my courtesy allotment, in other words. Fine, be that way. :lol: