Louisiana Lawmaker Forced to Clarify There Was No ‘Good’ in Slavery

[Hatuey]

Every time black people have failed to thrive it's always been the fault of whites. There are no exceptions to this rule.

Well, I mean, not like whites were surviving either. Some of them took on the thankless task of enslaving black folks. Do you know how much a slave cost?

A. Burden.

 

[Master Debator]

LolThe idea of anyone on the Left accusing anyone else of a victim complex. Good joke.

All your party does is exist to cry over taking L's in a culture war.

 

[Master Debator]

Not because Martin Luther King spoke the truth or held the truth and revealed a high moral truth, but because you *cucked* them into having to say, but not believing, that they stand with him.

My word, what happens when they are un-cucked? or de-cucked?

You make more and more sense as you continue to *spew* (thanks Tiger) your understanding of things.

You tell me. What happens when a white winger gets out of line these days?

As I see it your people have two choices. Bow your head and bend your knee or get canceled, fired, called a racist or a Karen and or be ruthlessly mocked and shamed in public or on social media.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Your post is gobbledygook. I do my best to read stuff, but you went for 10 paragraphs to tell us that you read what racists had to say, and you thought it was logical, and made their racism kind of okay, but also bad, but also with merit. Whatever.

The idea in the post you quote from, directed to esteemed Fight the Power, was coherent to my general argument. But you must remember that *racist* is your-plural term, not mine. I believe that I think (I am still deciding) that multi-ethnic and multi-cultural projects, such as was undertaken in the United States in the Sixties and post-Sixties, are a dubious cultural and national route to take. It definitely seems to me, given what is happening now in our present time, that it does not lead to *harmony* and *well-being* but, in fact, to the opposite of that.

I definitely do notice that there is now an ‘anti-white’ movement which develops and channels hatred and contempt not only at Whites generally, but at what I can call the *accomplishments* of Whites and white culture — for example the very founding of the United States. This *channelled contempt* is not a small thing. It is very very destructive. And for this reason it leads to — is leading to — the coming undone of the *social glue* that binds the nation.

So, if this is true it would lead one to think about and examine different situations in recent history where unalike people are forced into association and conflicts develop. I can say that to all evidence, to the degree that I have exposed myself to that evidence, that homogeneous cultures composed of *alike* peoples who share cultural and social *agreements* and are also similar somatically, seem to get along together better. This makes intuitive sense to me. I think that generally speaking people desire to be around *people that are like them*. Such conditions generally produce circumstances of greater *trust* and also of *comfort*.

What I do say is that it is completely ethical and thoroughly just, and also necessary, to *get out from under* the constraints that have been and are applied to our processes of free-thinking. I notice and oppose *intellectual coercion*. I notice that these are present, extremely so, and that most people when they think think through *received thought* not *free-thought*. I suggest that getting clear of these coercive influences is the great *crime* of the day. And the Orwellian term for that is crimethink and thoughtcrime.

It would appear that even what I have written here is evidence of bad-thought and wrong-think. It all is very *suspicious* when one shows that one wishes to, and can, think freely.

I think that our *entire age* (the time that we live in) is undergirded by sets of mistruths, untruths, and determined thoughts. To get clear about all of this requires a revisionist project. And I further assert that this will take a given person — say you when you are not drooling on your bib or cavorting like an idiot — years of intellectual work to begin to arrive at clarity. This is a challenging thing to say though because one must either defend against the assertion or acquiesce to what the assertion demands: self-examination. And self-examination is painful.

I will end this by saying something I think is intuitively obvious: the white race and the black African race are non-compatable. This is not (as I see things) a racist statement. In my view each of these races is better off (how shall I put this?) keeping their distance from one another. I do not see how they could *mingle* unless they were to have become blended together. And here I do mean biologically. Blacks and Whites are sort of the extreme example, no? But I do tend to think that people should have self-consciousness enough that they choose to stay with their kind.

That is what I think and if I am *wrong* I guess I will have eventually to lear the *real truth*.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

As I see it your people have two choices. Bow your head and bend your knee or get canceled, fired, called a racist or a Karen and or be ruthlessly mocked and shamed in public or on social media.

There is of course a third alternative. It means not to *bow one’s head* as you say but it does mean standing up to social and intellectual coercion (which is the function of mocking and shaming).

And that alternative describes what I consider to be *my project*.

Simply put it is examining the inner structure of what your-plural assertions and declarations are based on, and seeing that the base is largely hollow and, as exampled by you, bluster & gloating.

You do not have an *argument* per se nor a moral base for what you say and do. I have a strong sense that, eventually, this will all be exposed. But certainly at this time there is some sense to your celebration.

 

[Hatuey]

The idea in the post you quote from, directed to esteemed Fight the Power, was coherent to my general argument.

No, no, we arent reading more gobbledygook today. You read what racists and white supremacists had to say, and you agreed.

End of story. Make it more complicated by publicly raping a thesaurus if you want, but that is all this is. Gobbledygook.

 

[Master Debator]

There is of course a third alternative. It means not to *bow one’s head* as you say but it does mean standing up to social and intellectual coercion (which is the function of mocking and shaming).

And that alternative describes what I consider to be *my project*.

Simply put it is examining the inner structure of what your-plural assertions and declarations are based on, and seeing that the base is largely hollow and, as exampled by you, bluster & gloating.

You do not have an *argument* per se nor a moral base for what you say and do. I have a strong sense that, eventually, this will all be exposed. But certainly at this time there is some sense to your celebration.

That third option is the same as the second. No one but racists thinks there were hundreds and thousands of benefits to slavery for the slaves or that white Europeans have a right to enforce some sort of permanent racial majority. That's just not a thing the vast majority of decent people believe.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

You read what racists and white supremacists had to say, and you agreed.

Notice the formula that you have adopted. You define and control the terms *racist* and *supremacist*, assert damningly that I agree with them, and in this way believe that your position is coherent. Or that you even have a point. You have no point, no thought, no idea at all.

This is honestly how hundreds and thousands, millions, carry on today. And the game-formula you work with is the main structure used by dozens on this forum.

I have read some who you would label racist and supremacist, but who often do not fit into your strict categories, and I agree with them in some ways but not all. But I do know what their arguments are whereas you do not. You could not because you cannot read outside of whatever zone you do read in, which is likely limited.

So you provide an example about coercion and how it works.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

That third option is the same as the second. No one but racists thinks there were hundreds and thousands of benefits to slavery for the slaves or that white Europeans have a right to enforce some sort of permanent racial majority.

No one but those you *define* as racist. But your axis is in that: holding to that definition and not relenting in it use. This shows how powerful a tool it is. And it really is. Use it and as Bowden says “people collapse”.

Except I don’t. And no one else need do so, either.

The trick here is to see clearly that it is you who are using terms in an underhanded war. Your entire approach and discourse is unethical. You misrepresent yourself. This is clearly seen the more that you reveal of what you actually think and what you are actually doing.

But nothing I have said is unethical nor factually wrong. Your condemnation is that I have the thought, that I feel free to say it. And that is what you must stop. And that is what i meant by *blocking*.

 

[Master Debator]

Notice the formula that you have adopted. You define and control the terms *racist* and *supremacist*, assert damningly that I agree with them, and in this way believe that your position is coherent. Or that you even have a point. You have no point, no thought, no idea at all.

This is honestly how hundreds and thousands, millions, carry on today. And the game-formula you work with is the main structure used by dozens on this forum.

I have read some who you would label racist and supremacist, but who often do not fit into your strict categories, and I agree with them in some ways but not all. But I do know what their arguments are whereas you do not. You could not because you cannot read outside of whatever zone you do read in, which is likely limited.

So you provide an example about coercion and how it works.

These definitions don't require your agreement. They are agreed upon by society and society has deemed you and you Confederate loving authors to be racists. Crying about isn't going to change anyone's perception.

 

[Ouroboros]

MLK certainly DIDN’T pander to the white people who screamed with outrage over the civil rights activists “breaking the law”, as it turned out.

And because he insisted on non violent protests, the culture accepted, in a relatively short period of time, that if he broke any laws, he did so for a higher purpose.

Not the BLM dirtbags that you’re willing to place alongside MLK. They’re all about extorting money with the threat of violence. That’s precisely why conservatives are justified in calling them thugs, no matter how they cover their tracks with “peaceful protests” (because they know that even Wimpy Biden would shut them down if they didn’t make a pretense of obeying the law).

 

[Ouroboros]

King assassination riots - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Well, that's embarrassing. Anyways, again, probably it wasn't the real black supporters of MLK in those riots.

Just the extremist rap hip-hop music love thugs! And the black family being torn apart by drugs and abortion and the bitches and hoes culture no snitching.

Wait! Wait... no rap music back then. No bitches and hoes yet. Okay, that Sammy Davis Jr sure was dating a lot of white girls and mixing it up with the druggy hippies though.

Yeah, use that argument instead. They won't see it coming. Promise.

Yeah, that is embarrassing, for you. MLK’s followers dominantly stuck with non-violent methods while he was alive, and when he was killed, his supporters lost their cool and rioted. That in no way diminishes MLK’s strategy nor validates BLM.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

These definitions don't require your agreement. They are agreed upon by society and society has deemed you and you Confederate loving authors to be racists.

This is completely true. But I suggest an examination of the process of ‘deeming’.

You show how terms and definitions are powered and weaponized and also that their function can include deviousness and deception. This is how you show yourself throughout every post on this thread.

This can be exposed. Just by talking about it, calmly.

 

[Tigerace117]

And because he insisted on non violent protests, the culture accepted, in a relatively short period of time, that if he broke any laws, he did so for a higher purpose.

Not the BLM dirtbags that you’re willing to place alongside MLK. They’re all about extorting money with the threat of violence. That’s precisely why conservatives are justified in calling them thugs, no matter how they cover their tracks with “peaceful protests” (because they know that even Wimpy Biden would shut them down if they didn’t make a pretense of obeying the law).

It really didn’t though. It took years of struggling.....and it was the sheer viciousness of the conservatives opposed to him, rather than non violence itself, which largely caused mainstream society to wake up.

Conservatives across the south sobbed about how the civil rights movement was “all about the revolution” and screeched apocalyptic visions of chaos should Jim Crow fall. Guess what? It didn’t happen.

 

[Master Debator]

No one but those you *define* as racist. But your axis is in that: holding to that definition and not relenting in it use. This shows how powerful a tool it is. And it really is. Use it and as Bowden says “people collapse”.

You think that's it? You think you just say 'racist' and people collapse? If that's the case why doesn't it work when Republicans claim Democrats are the real racists? How come no one collapses then? You ever wonder why it's so easy for millions of people, as you say, to readily accept you're a racist?

Except I don’t. And no one else need do so, either.

Well, other than the fact you have no victories. Why should people follow a loser ideology?

The trick here is to see clearly that it is you who are using terms in an underhanded war.

I'm simply gloating over how badly you're losing. You don't want war don't sail across an ocean to take people's land. Or people's people. Don't enslave them. Rob them. Rape them. And then dont't come here and talk about how you have a right to keep them a permanent minority. You have the sack to lay that claim down then don't turn around and run from it and cry about war and not expect me to laugh at you. It is war. We have two opposing ideologies and if you want this land you're going to have to take cause I mean to take it from you. It's that simple.

Your entire approach and discourse is unethical. You misrepresent yourself. This is clearly seen the more that you reveal of what you actually think and what you are actually doing.

I don't care what raping slavers and their idolaters find unethical and I doubt you'll find very many who do.

But nothing I have said is unethical nor factually wrong.

According to you and only you.

Your condemnation is that I have the thought, that I feel free to say it. And that is what you must stop. And that is what i meant by *blocking*.

I don't care that you say it, my question is what comes next? When does the heat awakening happen where everyone realizes it isn't racist to argue for a permanent white majority?

 

[Master Debator]

This is completely true. But I suggest an examination of the process of ‘deeming’.

You show how terms and definitions are powered and weaponized and also that their function can include deviousness and deception. This is how you show yourself throughout every post on this thread.

This can be exposed. Just by talking about it, calmly.

You've been exposed. You are arguing in favor of a permanent white majority. That's racist by nearly everyone's definition. Where's the deception?

 

[ashurbanipal]

You speak too generally. Those who oppose my ideas do so entirely reflexively.

Uhhhh....are you being serious right now? You say I speak too generally, and then go on to make a sweeping generalization about those who oppose your ideas. Man...you just cannot make this shyte up!

Anyway, how do you know that "those who oppose your ideas" oppose them (entirely?) reflexively? How do you know that doing so is in any way a criticism in this instance? Seems to me there are plenty of reflexive positions people take that are nevertheless correct.

This is how debate, conflict and conversation occur today. It is certainly evident on this forum. There are established dichotomies and divisions between those understood to be *of the Left* and those *of the Right*, and largely, not entirely, but largely, complex *games* are performed here.

I work in very unpopular areas. But, I work with the idea that the people I speak with, and especially of the Left-Progressive sort, are ensconced within ideological constraints. This is why I speak of *ideological coercion* and really a whole range of things. I think that we live within established *regimes of thought*. And it is in this area -- examining this, talking about it, probing it -- where I place myself.

Well, it's easy to state all of that. Can you show that any of it is true? So far, you've refused to do so, which means that no one who is reasonable ought to take you seriously.

You are asking questions that have to do with how a stated thing can be true. That is your domain of interest. It is largely too abstract for my purposes.

No, I am asking question that have to do with whether or not some things you have written are or can be true. Of course, general constraints about how and why things are true apply to specific instances--including this one. You're writing like an engineer who proposes some preposterous machine, and when others take a look at her calculations, they are patently absurd, and then, when asked about those absurd calculations, the engineer replies that she doesn't want to be constrained by the all-too-abstract rules of mathematics, and will not be coerced into building according to reflexively-held general propositions that encode the truths of mathematics.

And of course, the machine doesn't work--as indeed, in this case, it does not. We've already tried to build it, and we saw that it did not work.

So I do not want to engage with you at that level. But feel free to develop your ideas whatever they may be. I always read what people write.

I believe that a range of advantages was *bequeathed* to Africans by the enslavement they suffered in the United States. I have described this to the degree that I feel is sufficient. I fully accept that you and others dispute the premise, and I understand why! What I stated was stated in Post No. 7. I have further elucidated my perspective in other places (later posts).

You remain within your preferred *abstract* zones here. I can suggest examining the full scope of my thought as expressed throughout this thread and then see if you have any areas that you'd like to engage in. I do not want to bicker over your self-profession of expertise. We work in very different areas of concern though.

Not so much. Reasoning pervades every other area of human intellectual endeavor (which is one of the reasons I chose early on to study reason--I knew if I could not get reasoning right, I couldn't get anything right). I may not necessarily be qualified to check all of your facts or data, but I am qualified to check whether the conclusions you draw from those facts and data are supported by those very facts and that very data. And as far as I can tell, your conclusions are not supported by any facts or data you'd adduced in this thread (or, for that matter, any facts or data I can call to mind).

 

[Alizia Tyler]

You've been exposed. You are arguing in favor of a permanent white majority. That's racist by nearly everyone's definition. Where's the deception?

I guess I'd say that the *deception* resides with you. I have mentioned, because I think it is true (a true thing, thus a 'fact') that the immigration policy of the US was changed in the Sixties. I speak of that as 'social engineering' and it was carried out, for different reasons, by an elite class. Not though *democratic choice* mind you. And that is an important consideration.

I have only been pointing out, talking about, how these changes have come to be. So, getting clear about *the causal chain* of events is important. To understand our present we have to understand this causal chain. This involves going over a lot of material.

You are obviously advocating against the demographic status quo. You are in pro of a reduction in the white demographic. You are aware that this is going on, you celebrate it, and you also gloat over it. For this reason you have a policy-position, you describe a social plan. And you seem to feel that you have *right* on your side.

I do indeed argue -- I suggest as I prefer to say -- that it would have been best for the US as a nation to have maintained the supermajority status of the European-Caucasian demographic which was, prior to 1965 when it changed, about 95% European-Caucasian.

But my reasoning is that to have done so would have been 'ethical'. The better thing to have done. Why? Because I assert that multiculturalism and multi-ethnicism turns out to have a range of negative consequences.

One of them is in all that you say but principally in what you say that you are doing: undermining those who created this nation. Creating a climate of hared & contempt and expoliting hatred & contempt as indeed you are -- it runs through every one of your posts.

I am interested in the *meta-political* nature of the issue. "Demography is destiny". And this would be true in Nigeria, in Chile, in Japan, in France, in Finland.

So what I talk about moreover is not exclusively the social and political situation in the US but also that of Europe. There are many people -- and you can call them racists or whatever you want to -- who are concerned about the demographic situation in numerous European countries. Are their concerns 'wrong'? Are they 'racist'?

Yes, according to you. But you and people with your values and intentions always say what you want. You have weaponized these ideas into accusations. And you-plural use these terms in very devious and underhanded ways as you pursue your *agendas*.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

I am asking question that have to do with whether or not some things you have written are or can be true

Yes, and I explained why those things I did write are indeed true.

Not so much. Reasoning pervades every other area of human intellectual endeavor (which is one of the reasons I chose early on to study reason--I knew if I could get that right, I couldn't get anything right). I may not necessarily be qualified to check all of your facts or data, but I am qualified to check whether the conclusions you draw from those facts and data are supported by those very facts and that very data. And as far as I can tell, your conclusions are not supported by any facts or data you'd adduced in this thread (or, for that matter, any facts to data I can think of).

You are certainly *entitled to your opinion*. I have clearly expressed what I think on the matter.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

You think that's it? You think you just say 'racist' and people collapse? If that's the case why doesn't it work when Republicans claim Democrats are the real racists? How come no one collapses then? You ever wonder why it's so easy for millions of people, as you say, to readily accept you're a racist?

Yes, I do exactly think that. And you support my reasons for believing that when you refer to manipulation of sentiment and a moral sense as you *cuck* those who you have, according to you, under your power. This is what you say. You don't have a moral argument, your argument is grounded in lies, deceptions and manipulations -- according to you! You declare that you are involved in a deceiving game. It reduces to *power-concerns*.

And it does seem to me that when faced with various accusation that people do indeed *collapse*. To be a public figure today and to get labeled *racist* (there are other terms as well) can destroy a person's life. Loss of employment, etc. You know this, and you constantly revel in it. You say that the only option is 'Bowing the head and bending the knee" or suffering the wielding of shame & blame, exclusion, banning, loss of employment, etc. This is what you say.

You establish just those two alternatives. And I suggest there definitely is another option!

Today, these terms are being challenged. The way they are used. Their history as it were. I say that people exist under a range of constraints -- ideological, emotional, conceptual -- and must *get out from under them*.

It is a process, and it is difficult. I show that it can be done, and done ethically. That is my purpose.

You ever wonder why it's so easy for millions of people, as you say, to readily accept you're a racist?

Of course, and I have really thought these things through. You have not. I speak about why it has come about that "it's so easy for millions of people" to fall before false-narratives. To come under their sway. To become *victims* of them.

And I propose that it can all be successfully opposed with sound reasoning and clear, fair exposition. Just as I do in relation to you.

 

[Master Debator]

I guess I'd say that the *deception* resides with you. I have mentioned, because I think it is true (a true thing, thus a 'fact') that the immigration policy of the US was changed in the Sixties. I speak of that as 'social engineering' and it was carried out, for different reasons, by an elite class. Not though *democratic choice* mind you. And that is an important consideration.

No. You're wild conspiracies aren't important considerations.

I have only been pointing out, talking about, how these changes have come to be. So, getting clear about *the causal chain* of events is important. To understand our present we have to understand this causal chain. This involves going over a lot of material.

No amount of obfuscation is going to blind people to the fact the people advocating for a permanent white majority in America are racist.

You are obviously advocating against the demographic status quo. You are in pro of a reduction in the white demographic. You are aware that this is going on, you celebrate it, and you also gloat over it. For this reason you have a policy-position, you describe a social plan. And you seem to feel that you have *right* on your side.

No. I gloat over the reduction of white racists. I don't care what ethnicity is in the majority, I only care about the policies people advocate for. Their skin tone doesn't matter.

I do indeed argue -- I suggest as I prefer to say -- that it would have been best for the US as a nation to have maintained the supermajority status of the European-Caucasian demographic which was, prior to 1965 when it changed, about 95% European-Caucasian.

Because you're a racist...

But my reasoning is that to have done so would have been 'ethical'. The better thing to have done. Why? Because I assert that multiculturalism and multi-ethnicism turns out to have a range of negative consequences.

Because you're a racist...

One of them is in all that you say but principally in what you say that you are doing: undermining those who created this nation. Creating a climate of hared & contempt and expoliting hatred & contempt as indeed you are -- it runs through every one of your posts.

They were racist slavers, why should I advocate people idolize them?

I am interested in the *meta-political* nature of the issue. "Demography is destiny". And this would be true in Nigeria, in Chile, in Japan, in France, in Finland.

Demography is destiny doesn't mean anything.

So what I talk about moreover is not exclusively the social and political situation in the US but also that of Europe. There are many people -- and you can call them racists or whatever you want to -- who are concerned about the demographic situation in numerous European countries. Are their concerns 'wrong'? Are they 'racist'?

A lot them are, yes.

Yes, according to you. But you and people with your values and intentions always say what you want. You have weaponized these ideas into accusations. And you-plural use these terms in very devious and underhanded ways as you pursue your *agendas*.

I say what I want and you say what you want and people decide who they think has better ideas and the racists have been losing that battle for over a century now.

 

[Ouroboros]

It really didn’t though. It took years of struggling.....and it was the sheer viciousness of the conservatives opposed to him, rather than non violence itself, which largely caused mainstream society to wake up.

Conservatives across the south sobbed about how the civil rights movement was “all about the revolution” and screeched apocalyptic visions of chaos should Jim Crow fall. Guess what? It didn’t happen.

Let’s see you back up your claim. Show me some conservative, any conservative, directly inveighing against MLK after, say, 1975.

 

[Tigerace117]

Let’s see you back up your claim. Show me some conservative, any conservative, directly inveighing against MLK after, say, 1975.

Jesse Helms - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Uhhhh....are you being serious right now?

You are free to challenge what I say and think. And you are free to assert, bizarrely, that I do not speak seriously. But for my part it is you I do not take seriously. Your claims about high-reasoning and your various PhD's don't mean anything to me. They should stop meaning anything much to you!

 

[Master Debator]

Yes, I do exactly think that. And you support my reasons for believing that when you refer to manipulation of sentiment and a moral sense as you *cuck* those who you have, according to you, under your power. This is what you say. You don't have a moral argument, your argument is grounded in lies, deceptions and manipulations -- according to you! You declare that you are involved in a deceiving game. It reduces to *power-concerns*.

My argument isn't in deception it is in shaming and mocking those who do adhere to moral absolutes. Shaming them for being associated with racists. Shame them for employing racists. And shame them for defending old slaver and Confederate idols. Playing on their morals isn't deception, their moral compasses don't come from me.

And it does seem to me that when faced with various accusation that people do indeed *collapse*. To be a public figure today and to get labeled *racist* (there are other terms as well) can destroy a person's life. Loss of employment, etc. You know this, and you constantly revel in it. You say that the only option is 'Bowing the head and bending the knee" or suffering the wielding of shame & blame, exclusion, banning, loss of employment, etc. This is what you say.

I do say that. I say it with amusement and glee but just because I enjoy the consequences racists in today's society face doesn't make my accusation of racism wrong. To determine that we have to examine exactly what I'm calling racist, for instance, your argument in favor of a permanent white majority. Is that racist? Well let's see, are you calling for black and brown people to be permanent minorities? Yep. Well guess what, that's racist. Sorry if that upsets you.

You establish just those two alternatives. And I suggest there definitely is another option!

Well you could theoretically convince people you aren't a racist but I see no evidence you're capable of that.

Today, these terms are being challenged. The way they are used. Their history as it were. I say that people exist under a range of constraints -- ideological, emotional, conceptual -- and must *get out from under them*.

They aren't being challenged very effectively. Confederate symbols continue to fall, Confederate flag wavers continue to lose their jobs. Can it even really be called a challenge when your claims are laughed back in face?

It is a process, and it is difficult. I show that it can be done, and done ethically. That is my purpose.

How have you show that? Where have you been effective?

Of course, and I have really thought these things through. You have not. I speak about why it has come about that "it's so easy for millions of people" to fall before false-narratives. To come under their sway. To become *victims* of them.

That's a sad brag. You've spent all this time thinking this through and I'm still kicking your ass all over the battlefield?

And I propose that it can all be successfully opposed with sound reasoning and clear, fair exposition. Just as I do in relation to you.

Where is this success?