'Ask a Slave' Makes Depressingly Stupid Tourist Questions Hilarious

[Helix]

Actress and comedian Azie Mira Dungey used to work as a historical re-enactor at Mount Vernon. And 1- because George Washington's old stomping grounds are staffed with people acting out roles they might have had during the George Washington days and 2- Dungey is black, she played the role of a slave named Lizzy Mae. Now, she's made her experiences fielding actual stupid questions from actual stupid tourists into a video series that not only invites laughter, it encourages people to think a little harder about how we lionize the Founding Fathers as paragons of morality.

'Ask a Slave' Makes Depressingly Stupid Tourist Questions Hilarious

oh, man. she is hilarious.

:lol:

 

[Aunt Spiker]

That was actually really ****ed up.

 

[ecofarm]

The founders are lionized as paragons of morality of their time. If we compare governments around the world, at the same time, and how their citiziens were treated (of course, every country had slaves), we see a considerable difference. Most of the world had God-Kings, Kings, Emperors, Warlords and other totalitarian regimes without votes. It annoys me when people give the founders crap about slavery and other things while ignoring the rest of the world at that time. Dropping context makes a stupid argument - the only places to go after that are absolutism and nihilism.


/rant off (will not clicky on video)

 

[Quag]

That was both hilarious and disturbing.
Kind of reminded me of this
Rick Mercer - Talking To Americans - YouTube

 

[Helix]

sorry, guys; wasn't trying to make a political point. i just found it hilarious that a former slave reenactor finally got to say what she was really thinking when tourists asked dumb questions. didn't really consider the political angle of it. mea culpa.

 

[Thorgasm]

The founders are lionized as paragons of morality of their time. If we compare governments around the world, at the same time, and how their citiziens were treated (of course, every country had slaves), we see a considerable difference. Most of the world had God-Kings, Kings, Emperors, Warlords and other totalitarian regimes without votes. It annoys me when people give the founders crap about slavery and other things while ignoring the rest of the world at that time. Dropping context makes a stupid argument - the only places to go after that are absolutism and nihilism.


/rant off (will not clicky on video)

So you choose moral relativism?

 

[ecofarm]

So you choose moral relativism?

I choose moral objectivism and reject moral absolutism. I'm not saying that owning slaves was right, it's wrong (objectively), I'm saying that judging someone without context, regarding a common act at their time/place, is not a legitimate argument.

 

[Helix]

i'll move this to off topic. it's not Lighter Side material due to a political angle that i didn't take into account. again, apologies.

 

[Thorgasm]

I choose moral objectivism and reject moral absolutism. I'm not saying that owning slaves was right, it's wrong (objectively), I'm saying that judging someone without context, regarding a common act at their time/place, is not a legitimate argument.

"Everyone else was doing it" is no excuse when it comes to morality.

 

[ecofarm]

"Everyone else was doing it" is no excuse when it comes to morality.

But it is an excuse in judgement. Thus, moral objectivism and not absolutism.

 

[Harshaw]

"Everyone else was doing it" is no excuse when it comes to morality.

What source of morality is there, other than what people generally agree to be moral?

 

[ttwtt78640]

So you choose moral relativism?

No many choose absolute morality as in the word of God:

You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn't know they were doing anything wrong.

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

Slavery in the Bible

 

[Thorgasm]

What source of morality is there, other than what people generally agree to be moral?

Morality is a hypothetical construct, this is true. Although, you can use logic to arrive at morals instead of following the herd.

 

[Thorgasm]

No many choose absolute morality as in the word of God:





Slavery in the Bible

And look how many times it's been wrong.

 

[Harshaw]

Morality is a hypothetical construct, this is true. Although, you can use logic to arrive at morals instead of following the herd.

No, you can't reach morality through logic alone. Logic is just math. You have to start with a moral premise first. Where does that premise come from?

Yes, it's a hypothetical construct, defined by what most people agree is moral -- thus, what the "herd" believes is moral IS morality. If you decide most people's idea of morality is wrong (as you pretty much do here), on what basis do you decide that? What makes you morally right and everyone else wrong? What's your source of morality?

 

[Thorgasm]

No, you can't reach morality through logic alone. Logic is just math. You have to start with a moral premise first. Where does that premise come from?

Yes, it's a hypothetical construct, defined by what most people agree is moral -- thus, what the "herd" believes is moral IS morality. If you decide most people's idea of morality is wrong (as you pretty much do here), on what basis do you decide that? What makes you morally right and everyone else wrong? What's your source of morality?

Logic. Slavery doesn't jive with "All men were created equally." and "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." They actually had to suspend logic to rationalize that blacks and women didn't count.

 

[Risky Thicket]

I thought it was funny as hell. People in general are idiots.

 

[Harshaw]

Logic. Slavery doesn't jive with "All men were created equally." and "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." They actually had to suspend logic to rationalize that blacks and women didn't count.

That's assuming that "men," as generally understood, included blacks and, er, women. Besides, what he said was, well, revolutionary, not a statement of the generally-accepted status quo. (Not that Jefferson even disagreed with you about slavery.)

But that's a deflection from the point -- what's your source of morality if it's not what most everyone agrees it to be?

 

[Thorgasm]

That's assuming that "men," as generally understood, included blacks and, er, women. Besides, what he said was, well, revolutionary, not a statement of the generally-accepted status quo. (Not that Jefferson even disagreed with you about slavery.)

But that's a deflection from the point -- what's your source of morality if it's not what most everyone agrees it to be?

As I said, logic. If you aren't hurting anyone else, you are okay. If you are hurting someone else, you are wrong.

 

[Harshaw]

As I said, logic. If you aren't hurting anyone else, you are okay. If you are hurting someone else, you are wrong.

But that's not "logic." That's just a premise. If everyone else sees it differently, what makes them wrong and you right?

 

[Thorgasm]

But that's not "logic." That's just a premise. If everyone else sees it differently, what makes them wrong and you right?

Violence begets violence. It's not a mystery. "What comes around, goes around."

 

[Harshaw]

Violence begets violence. It's not a mystery. "What comes around, goes around."

That doesn't come anywhere near answering the question.

 

[Thorgasm]

That doesn't come anywhere near answering the question.

It is certainly logical. Most of our current morality is logical. The morals that have changed did so to become more logical.

 

[Harshaw]

It is certainly logical. Most of our current morality is logical. The morals that have changed did so to become more logical.

No, actually, it's not "logical," it's just a truism, and it certainly doesn't answer the question. Not to mention that "logic" can lead to some very horrible places if you start with a different premise, and you haven't explained why your premise is a superior one if everyone else disagrees with it.

The question, again: if everyone else sees "morality" differently than you do, what makes you right?

 

[Thorgasm]

No, actually, it's not "logical," it's just a truism, and it certainly doesn't answer the question. Not to mention that "logic" can lead to some very horrible places if you start with a different premise, and you haven't explained why your premise is a superior one if everyone else disagrees with it.

The question, again: if everyone else sees "morality" differently than you do, what makes you right?

I used logic to arrive at my morality. If everyone sees it differently, they suspended logic. Of course, they may have started with a faulty premise as well.