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

[Ouroboros]

Frankly alizia.. it is you that are trying to decay the nation. You are in fact.. the decay.. the rot.. that holds the US back from achieving really its ideal.. THAT ALL people are created equal.. not just all white men.

Also.. when it comes to lies? You tell some whoppers. Like the whoppers you make up about my feelings, and my positions... Not to mention that fact that you have not supported any of your assertions with evidence.

Except that a defense of CRT promotes equality no more than a defense of the Ku Klux Klan.

 

[jaeger19]

Except that a defense of CRT promotes equality no more than a defense of the Ku Klux Klan.

Please explain..please use evidence from the originators and pioneers of crt..
Show us your evidence.

 

[Ouroboros]

Nope.. sorry sir.. I don;t ignore your points. I demand evidence that supports them. Thats a BIG difference. In fact.. I probably spend way way to much time wasted reading your points.. but I certainly do not ignore them.. I simply ask for evidence of your assertions.

Which frankly you failed to provide.

There’s plenty of points you’ve capriciously ignored. You asked for proof that CRT was being used to harm children (my paraphrase). I read and reviewed here a leading anti-racism book, Not My Idea, which subscribes to the CRT dictum that only Black people possess “experiential knowledge.” I pointed out the book’s more obvious falsehoods and distortions. I suppose you may prefer the lies of CRT over the dominance of white people, but that’s far from giving children anything resembling truth.

Or do you agree with the book’s premise, that one can consistently turn on the TV and see Black men shot down? Not just the allegation that they were shot down, but unambiguous footage ALWAYS showing the cop to be in the wrong.

 

[Ouroboros]

Which was in his right to do in self defense. Martin had EVERY RIGHT.. to use deadly force against an armed pursuer. He had every reason to believe that he was in imminent danger of death or bodily harm.

If Martin attacked as GZ claimed, he forfeited the right of self defense. “Stand your ground” doesn’t mean “attack anyone who bugs you.”

 

[Ouroboros]

No.. not by my logic. By my logic.. if you are to talk about what Owens and Lamont said about a subject during an interview.. I would want to see the context of that interview. Meaning.. what was said before.. and what was said after.. the context. So.. alizia did provide the context in this case.
In the case of delgado? No she did not.

Stop making stuff up dude.. it just makes you look silly.
By the way.. the excerpt didn;t expose Delgado;s racism. The excerpt was being used by Alizia to invalidate CRT because of the use of experiential data etc.
Stop making stuff up.

Nope, your excuse of “context” was ridiculous from the word go, which is why I made fun of it.

The experiential data was rooted in the physical race of those allowed to speak, and so proves Delgado’s racism.

 

[Ouroboros]

Well.. it made her ignorant of the study. Which means she had not read it.
Actually the guest on Owens show did give the author of the study. So yes.. he did say who produced it.
IT was pretty clear to me that Owens was NOT familiar with studies on police interactions etc. If she was.. she would not have been spouting off on soe of the points she was.

Your clarity is merely based on a partisan reading of the situation. That’s why you’re focusing on minutiae, a low level of attack to which Owens and Lamont did not descend.

The more important point Owens got Lamont to admit was the disparity between the way MLK and BLM used “spectacle” to make news. That went over your head, huh?

 

[Ouroboros]

Actually society didn't condem zimmerman..it identified with him..
Which is why Zimmerman got off despite the facts of the case.

 

[Ouroboros]

Please explain..please use evidence from the originators and pioneers of crt..
Show us your evidence.

See post 3553.

 

[jaeger19]

There’s plenty of points you’ve capriciously ignored. You asked for proof that CRT was being used to harm children (my paraphrase). I read and reviewed here a leading anti-racism book, Not My Idea, which subscribes to the CRT dictum that only Black people possess “experiential knowledge.” I pointed out the book’s more obvious falsehoods and distortions. I suppose you may prefer the lies of CRT over the dominance of white people, but that’s far from giving children anything resembling truth.

Or do you agree with the book’s premise, that one can consistently turn on the TV and see Black men shot down? Not just the allegation that they were shot down, but unambiguous footage ALWAYS showing the cop to be in the wrong.

Nope. One..you did not provide evidence that crt says only black people posses experiential knowledge.
Two.. you did not provide evidence that said book is any part of a school child's curriculum..
Three you did not provide any evidence of harm done to any children.

 

[jaeger19]

Nope, your excuse of “context” was ridiculous from the word go, which is why I made fun of it.

The experiential data was rooted in the physical race of those allowed to speak, and so proves Delgado’s racism.

Yeah..lets see some evidence that only Black people are allowed to speak.

 

[jaeger19]

Your clarity is merely based on a partisan reading of the situation. That’s why you’re focusing on minutiae, a low level of attack to which Owens and Lamont did not descend.

The more important point Owens got Lamont to admit was the disparity between the way MLK and BLM used “spectacle” to make news. That went over your head, huh?

No..my clarity is based on what they said. And on the logic and studies presented..which I happen to know having linked to said studies.

 

[jaeger19]

Just facts.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Frankly Alizia ... it is you that are trying to decay the nation. You are in fact ... the decay ... the rot ... that holds the US back from achieving really its ideal ... THAT ALL people are created equal ... not just all white men.

You do not have a way to understand *my position*. And this is true for anyone who flies by and bases their assessment on a superficial glance. Note that if I (or we) say anything that in even the slightest manner contradicts the general, asserted narrative about *what America is* or what it should be, that the reaction provoked is instantaneous and rather extreme and violent. This is the way that *argument* is established today. I know that you cannot understand what I am saying and so what I am saying I say for the benefit of those with discrimination -- the ability to think things through.

My position is that we are surrounded by *lying narratives* that in most cases have been established, or encouraged, by the powerful elite factions that control the ideological direction of the country. My position is not involved with creating hatred, fomenting hatred, nor is it ultimately concerned for race-categories. My position takes issue with *forced thinking* *intellectual coercion* and the sort of intensely politicized narratives that circulate today. So, my basic position is that it is next-to-impossible to arrive at clarity and understanding about much of anything, and definitely surrounding the hot issues of the day.

My position is far less activist (I do not know what to recommend in terms of social policy or political policy for the nation of the US) and much more philosophical. A philosophical perspective is one that by its nature is removed and even to a degree abstract. I use the term *philosophical* to mean thought-through, contemplated, speculative, investigative, propositional, intellectual. I am interested in examining the sort of *declarations* that are made by people today -- those that we have and absorb without necessarily thinking them through -- and I am interested in *interrogating* them.

So, in respect to issues that have to do with the US in the sense of how the nation defines itself -- and this includes, or I should say that in my way of seeing it should include as legitimate -- how a people define themselves somatically

Greek sōmatikós=sōmat-, s. of sôma body + -ikos -ic​

​

Adj.

1.

somatic- affecting or characteristic of the body as opposed to the mind or spirit; "bodily needs"; "a corporal defect";"corporeal suffering"; "a somatic symptom or somatic illness"​ corporal, corporeal, bodily​ physical - involving the body as distinguished from the mind or spirit; "physical exercise"; "physical suffering";"was sloppy about everything but her physical appearance"​

​

Because I refer expressly to the *body* this also raises red-flags. It is not *permitted* in today's thought-atmosphere to think in those terms, and definitely not if you are Caucasian-European.

As I have continually said my larger interest is *Europe*. When I refer to Europe, as we all know, your various *red-flags* go up because when I refer to that term I do refer to *European peoples* and that definition, in itself, has been made to be problematic. So by referring to *the preservation of Europe* nearly all of you who have oppositional stances go into freakout mode. Because you know that, indeed, self-preservation is a *dangerous concept*. Meaning, you have made it into such.

So all that I write takes place within these *forbidden zones*. And you-plural quite literally cannot *hear* what I say because the ideas are so foreign to the way you think.

Also ... when it comes to lies? You tell some whoppers. Like the whoppers you make up about my feelings, and my positions ... Not to mention that fact that you have not supported any of your assertions with evidence.

What specific feelings and what specific positions did I mis-describe? What is the *evidence* that you can present to explain your assertion?

 

[Alizia Tyler]

@jaeger19

Frankly Alizia ... it is you that are trying to decay the nation. You are in fact ... the decay ... the rot ... that holds the US back from achieving really its ideal ...

This is an example of a *declarative statement* that I believe can be examined from 'philosophical perspective'. Examined, thought about, turned over, researched -- this is what I mean. So, because I take a position that asserts that it is good, right and proper to think about the nature of this declaration, and potentially to contest it, I am therefore described as "holding the nation back from achieving its ideal".

It should be obvious to anyone with a rudimentary capacity to think that these are highly questionable assertions. This means that they are highly ideological assertions and, of course, all ideology can be and should be examined.

To say that those who question received ideology, that the act itself, is tied to currents that *decay the nation* is, I suggest potentially, a lie. It is not a full truth. It is a moralizing statement and it is one based in emotional assertion and sentimental opinion.

And emotional assertions and sentimental opinions dominate the thinking of today!

So I return to my original statement: there is nothing morally or ethically wrong with thinking about these things. There is nothing ethically or morally wrong with entertaining different perspectives about them.

Except please note: today's intellectual climate is a dangerous, intolerant climate, and if someone (a given person) says something event slightly wrong today, that person can suffer extreme consequences. Their whole life can be destroyed if they are a public figure or one with interests that can be attacked and affected.

It is within this sort of atmosphere, or in relations to its existence and power, that I propose *recovery of free thought*.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

@jaeger19

May I suggest that you get with Elon Musk and try to see if you can get a brain-to-phone immediate hook-up?

Is there a way that you can bypass your fingers and get your *stream-of-consciousness* thoughts directly to the phone and thus directly to the forum?

 

[Master Debator]

You do not have a way to understand *my position*. And this is true for anyone who flies by and bases their assessment on a superficial glance. Note that if I (or we) say anything that in even the slightest manner contradicts the general, asserted narrative about *what America is* or what it should be, that the reaction provoked is instantaneous and rather extreme and violent.

Why do you insist on equating skepticism and criticism as extreme and violent? Is that how your psyche interprets disagreement, as violence? Or are accusing someone here of physically assaulting you for expressing your point of view?

This is the way that *argument* is established today. I know that you cannot understand what I am saying and so what I am saying I say for the benefit of those with discrimination -- the ability to think things through.

Anyone capable of thinking things through can understand that your arguments aren't legitimized by skepticism, even instantaneous skepticism.

My position is that we are surrounded by *lying narratives* that in most cases have been established, or encouraged, by the powerful elite factions that control the ideological direction of the country. My position is not involved with creating hatred, fomenting hatred, nor is it ultimately concerned for race-categories. My position takes issue with *forced thinking* *intellectual coercion* and the sort of intensely politicized narratives that circulate today.

Ok I'm going to slowly reach into the recesses of my brain, careful now, I don't want you to mistake it for a violent sudden movement but I'm going question this claim as harmlessly as I can manage, and please, if this hurts you in any way just let me know and we can take a break, but if you can ma'am can you start with who exactly are these elites who've forced you into thinking a certain way, and exactly how have they managed that? You mentioned coercion, do they have compromising photos of you or something?

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Why do you insist on equating skepticism and criticism as extreme and violent? Is that how your psyche interprets disagreement, as violence? Or are accusing someone here of physically assaulting you for expressing your point of view?

Of course not.

It is likely that I have a different *news feed* and different sources I access to inform me. What I say, as a result of what I observe going on around me, is that intolerance, banning, shadow-banning, restricting, blocking, shaming, doxxing, and other such activities are part-and-parcel of government policy and private policy that is being enacted today. I refer to it as violence because, at bottom, it is violence.

I see the present *régime* (as I am inclined to call it) as having various lines of connection with totalitarian/authoritarian régimes and their policies. The American Progressive/Left, operating in this spirit, have begun to apply definitions to groups and ideas they hate with intolerant terms. Republicans are represented as *evil* and callous and cruel. Those who have issues with transgenderism or homosexuality get similar labels. If you are not on the side that they determine to be righteous, you are represented as being aligned with *evil*.

The present régime exploits this rhetoric as it advances sets of agenda and policy to entrench itself.

I am willing to soften the term *violent* to a degree if it is understood that the Progressive-Socialist and Communistic régimes have all shown tendencies that are ultimately destructive. But the idea is coherent.

When I write about such things, bobito, I am certainly not referring to those participating in this conversation. This conversation illuminates and explains things going on around us, and those things are consequential. But it is only a reflection of larger forces.

but if you can ma'am can you start with who exactly are these elites who've forced you into thinking a certain way, and exactly how have they managed that?

For you to answer your own question I would suggest you begin with a glossary study of Gramsci and his notion of *cultural hegemony*. If I am not mistaken this led eventually to the idea of *the long march through the institutions* (the following from Wiki):

The long march through the institutions (German: der lange Marsch durch die Institutionen) is a slogan coined by Communist student activist Rudi Dutschke around 1967 to describe his strategy for establishing the conditions for revolution: subverting society by infiltrating institutions such as the professions. The phrase "long march" is a reference to the prolonged struggle of the Chinese communists, which included a physical Long March of their army across China.​

​

Herbert Marcuse corresponded with Dutschke in 1971 to agree with this strategy, "Let me tell you this: that I regard your notion of the 'long march through the institutions' as the only effective way... In his 1972 book, Counterrevolution and Revolt, Marcuse wrote:​

To extend the base of the student movement, Rudi Dutschke has proposed the strategy of the long march through the institutions: working against the established institutions while working within them, but not simply by 'boring from within', rather by 'doing the job', learning (how to program and read computers, how to teach at all levels of education, how to use the mass media, how to organize production, how to recognize and eschew planned obsolescence, how to design, et cetera), and at the same time preserving one's own consciousness in working with others.​

​

The long march includes the concerted effort to build up counterinstitutions. They have long been an aim of the movement, but the lack of funds was greatly responsible for their weakness and their inferior quality. They must be made competitive. This is especially important for the development of radical, "free" media. The fact that the radical Left has no equal access to the great chains of information and indoctrination is largely responsible for its isolation.​

 

[Alizia Tyler]

[cont. from previous]

So, in your case, I can only suggest that you understand what the activities were and are among those classes, starting among student activists and academics, as they enacted their various *long marches*. But do not forget to research Gramsci and his notion of *cultural hegemony*. First stop might be to examine The Frankfurt School intellectuals when they set up intellectual shop at Columbia after the WW2. Fromm, Adorn, Horkheimer and others. Their influence extends very widely in the Sixties and in New York Intellectual Establishment. Again: thought-leaders.

Many of those people, later, gained high social positions. The easiest reference is President Obama who was, quite factually, trained directly under people who came out of these schools-of-thought. Obama, to all appearances, came onto the scene in a classic Trojan horse.

How they have managed all of this is really a question that involves examining *cultural productions* from the Sixties and beyond. You have to turn to the *intellectual class* and locate *thought leaders* and then trace their relationships to the "institutions" that are referred to.

I find it hard to believe that you are ignorant in these areas. But I guess it is not surprising. I am quite certain you do not have much capacity to *self-reflect* and you definitely are not aware of the *currents* that have formed you.

 

[Master Debator]

Of course not.

Okay so you're denying actual violence.

It is likely that I have a different *news feed* and different sources I access to inform me. What I say, as a result of what I observe going on around me, is that intolerance, banning, shadow-banning, restricting, blocking, shaming, doxxing, and other such activities are part-and-parcel of government policy and private policy that is being enacted today. I refer to it as violence because, at bottom, it is violence.

And now you're back to accusing people of violence...

Make up your mind, are you a poor little victim of violence yes or no?

Do you even know what violence is? Your examples imply that you don't.

I see the present *régime* (as I am inclined to call it) as having various lines of connection with totalitarian/authoritarian régimes and their policies. The American Progressive/Left, operating in this spirit, have begun to apply definitions to groups and ideas they hate with intolerant terms. Republicans are represented as *evil* and callous and cruel. Those who have issues with transgenderism or homosexuality get similar labels. If you are not on the side that they determine to be righteous, you are represented as being aligned with *evil*.

So you think being called names is equal to violence?

I am willing to soften the term *violent* to a degree if it is understood that the Progressive-Socialist and Communistic régimes have all shown tendencies that are ultimately destructive. But the idea is coherent.

It's not coherent, unless words include threats of violence none of what you describe could coherently be described as violent. I'd offer to debate the merits of those claims with you but I wouldn't want you accusing me of war crimes.

I find it hard to believe that you are ignorant in these areas. But I guess it is not surprising. I am quite certain you do not have much capacity to *self-reflect* and you definitely are not aware of the *currents* that have formed you.

I'm unimpressed by accusations from someone who thinks free speech is a violent assault on their person.

 

[Ouroboros]

Nope. One..you did not provide evidence that crt says only black people posses experiential knowledge.
Two.. you did not provide evidence that said book is any part of a school child's curriculum..
Three you did not provide any evidence of harm done to any children.

Delgado said it, and so did Higginbotham. I'd say you ought to read the latter yourself, but if you can't get that basic fact from the Delgado quote you won't be able to learn anything from a book for 8 year olds.

The mere fact that the book tells obvious lies is enough proof that it can harm kids. If the book was saying, "The Civil War was about states' rights," you'd be the first to oppose it. You wrote earlier that you were angry that your kids had suffered racist insults. NOT MY IDEA is one big racist insult, but you don't mind that if it's directed at White People.

Yeah, I'm sure you care how much the book's appearing in schools, but for the purposes of general information for others, Fox as usual has the facts of the case:

At least 25 public schools, districts pushing kids' book featuring 'Whiteness' contract with devil: report

More than two dozen public schools and school districts are pushing what critics say is a toxic kids' book that features a "[W]hiteness" contract with a devilish figure.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Do you even know what violence is? Your examples imply that you don't.

Actually, my brutish friend, it is you that do not understand well enough the roots of of our own language. Having studied Greek and a bit of Latin (and speaking Spanish a Latin-derived language) it comes easier to me I guess.

Old French from Latin violentia impetuosity, from violentus violent

You can see through these examples that the term *violence* as a type of aggressive impetuosity was used in a concise sense.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yeah..lets see some evidence that only Black people are allowed to speak.

Explain again why the author's words don't constitute evidence. I need a good laugh.

 

[Ouroboros]

No..my clarity is based on what they said. And on the logic and studies presented..which I happen to know having linked to said studies.

And that alleged clarity makes it impossible for you to respond to the conversation regarding "spectacle." Sounds more like your ego getting in the way.

 

[Ouroboros]

Just facts.

Another Mad Lib using "facts" to mean "whatever cause I sympathize with."

 

[jaeger19]

If Martin attacked as GZ claimed, he forfeited the right of self defense. “Stand your ground” doesn’t mean “attack anyone who bugs you.”

Nope..

Stop thinking of martin as a black thug. Think of him as a middle aged white guy.
He is walking home from going to the store on a dark rainy night.. and he realizes some stranger.. definitely not a cop, is following him in a car
( we know he knew he was being followed by stranger since he said so to his girlfriend).
That stranger then gets out of the car and starts to follow him... so Martin the middle aged white guy, decides to run and try to get away.
(we KNOW that he runs, because Zimmerman tells the 911 operator that "oh look he is running)
The stranger then continues to follow Martin the middle aged white guy (we know that he follows him because he tells the operator he is).

At this point.. Martin the middle aged white guy KNOWS full well that on a dark night, he is being pursued by a large man who is not a cop.

Now.. if what do you think he should reasonably believe is going on. Should martin.. the middle aged white guy, think that the stranger following him is going to ask him to go to the church social? Do you think a stranger following you at night down the street is obviously trying to sell candy bars for the girls softball team.

Please.. ANYONE.. who is being objective and looking at it through the eyes of Martin.. would reasonably believe that Zimmerman constituted a threat. Zimmerman was actually ARMED with a deadly weapon. If at any time Martin observed this.. he would reasonably believe that Zimmerman constituted a deadly threat.

And at that point.. you are justified in self defense. When you are being pursued.. and you have tried to get away and yet you are still being pursued..by an person with a deadly weapon.. down a dark rainy street.. know one reasonably thinks that you should have to wait until the armed pursuer draws his firearm and kills you.. before trying to defend yourself.

Thats just based on what we KNOW..
Then factor in zimmermans mma training.. (so he knew how to defend himself on the ground.. and may actually have put himself on his back in an attempt to pull guard and use a submission).. The fact that he KNEW that help was on the way.. since he CALLED THEM. The fact that the medical examiner found NO indication of deadly force being used against Zimmerman. The fact that Zimmerman tells the police that martin was "grabbing for his gun"... though no DNA from martins skin or fingerprints were found on the firearm.

Sorry.. Martin had every right to defend himself from a pursuer armed with a deadly weapon. He definitely could reasonably believe that he was in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm.