• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Possibly you dropped my comparison between the Harry Potter reaction and the Mississippi Burning reaction because you simply don’t remember (or choose not to remember) the latter.
I picked one and showed the inconsistency of your argument. One seemed like more than enough to prove my point.
In any case, in the same spirit of disinterest, I ignore your comparison and repeat that what both reactions have in common is not whether the protesters could keep the respective franchises from making money— the fact that both had already made money was what drew the attacks from Right and Left respectively.
I didn't mention anything about money. I said accusing someone of promoting witchcraft seems similar to accusing someone of promoting racism. Money had nothing at all to do with my argument.
Both protesters sought to control future narratives with their rhetoric.

Oscar So White did not promote a narrative as such;
Sure it did. It promoted the idea that the Oscar committee was racially biased.
her facile argument was that Hollywood needed more POC representation, period. Possibly she assumed that more diversity in casting movies would eventuate in more movies being made about POC concerns. But that wasn’t her argument; it was just “too many white people,” and Hollywood liberals fell over themselves to virtue signal so they wouldn’t get on any future blacklists. There’s no intellectual rhetoric there; just a hectoring demand which characterizes the “hysteria” that I believe AT first referenced.
Again, what is the distinction there other than you obviously have a personal gripe against the Oscar So White folks? Accusing people of witchcraft isn't more intellectually sound. Witches don't even exit! Racism actual does though. If we are picking one of those that could potentially have some intellectual framework supporting it the accusation of racism would be it because between racism is actually real.
That’s why your oversimple definition of cancel culture won’t fly; it’s not taking into account the difference between, say, your average liberal film reviewer and a cancel-happy demagogue.
Nope. Doesn't seem much of a difference except that in your rush to attack liberals you offered up the theory that accusations of witchcraft have intellectual underpinings... 😂
 
I am in a particularly good mod today so, yes, I will entertain your question. I do demand however that it be a smart question. As this is after all *the smart kid's thread*.

My dear child, my somewhat poor, disadvantaged mentally suffering, yet appreciated child, please listen to the following:
You sad cucked, white wing moron, it probably is my fault for assuming yesterday when you said that you would be providing proof that it would be something other than you amateur movie reviews. My bad for expecting more from you. 😂
And yet those who engage in this interpretive work have very important roles to play. And those who are very good at what they do, if they are good at it, rely on skills of perception that are not in a scientific category.
So you admit that science plays no part in your analysis that you rely on your own personal sentiment. Not like we couldn't piece that together ourselves but it's nice to have confirmation straight from the horses mouth.
In order for there to be *interpretation* there has to be someone who *looks* and *muses* and *thinks*. You will admit, and I will certainly agree, that what is interpreted depends totally on the one who does the interpretation. Pretty basic stuff really but important to get it out there.
I wouldn't say it's important, because nothing that happens on this site is, but it is about time you admit your arguments rely on your subjective feelings. Good for you for finally getting that off your chest.
I did not claim to have *scientific evidence* and it is your folly to imagine that in such subjective territory that even 'science' exists.
There we have it folks. She finally admits to what I've been saying for pages now.
And I did say, and I still believe, that the film 12 Years A Slave is an important *text* that can be read. True it is that this is subjective territory.
And she repeats it so she can't later accuse me of misinterpreting her.
Now, I use the term 'hysteria' and 'hysterical' to categorize, in a very general sense, a portion of what is going on around us. This is, obviously, a term of some exaggeration. But I suggest it is useful if it is carefully applied.
Again what are you talking about? What is going on around us? Election hysteria? What specifically are you talking about?
As an example of this hysteria I submit this. I suggest -- many many people became aware -- that the reaction to Donald Trump's win sent many people careening toward a strange psychological edge. And there Trump Derangement Syndrome was, it seems to all appearances, ignominiously birthed.
And white wing hysteria caused cucks to riot at the Capitol, what's your point? Oh right, you are trying to use extreme examples as evidence why no one takes your arguments seriously here except you can't effectively argue against anyone here so you prefer to attack Screeching Girl and whoever this lady is. That bit of deflection is obvious.
I suggest that these *feelings*, these hysterical feelings (I say with some exaggeration and yet not veering out of the realm of the real), got worse as time went on. When the pandemic hit -- understandably perhaps -- things careened into la-la-land. Flipped city. The looney bin got racing wheels . . .
Everyone who had a problem with Trump was just hysterical huh? This is the brilliant argument you wanted me to wait a day for? 😂
These are not *scientific observations*.
No shit. 😂
They are observations that tens of millions of people share. We are perhaps not entirely certain how to characterize them. And yet we notice that they exist.
And many more witnessed the hysteria on the right when they tried to over turn an election.
I would not say that such 'hysteria' is solely the possession, or affliction, of Left-Wing nut jobs (ooops, that is a bit subjective! may it be stricken from the record) but Good Lord it sure seems to have a certain purchase on them.
Does it? Your side lost that election like your side is losing the culture wars. Seems like the idea that the white wing is full of mutants and morons is gaining more purchase.
 
Nope. Again, still just you.

We might know that if you were at all capable of posting evidence of them doing so but you haven't so we don't. That's how debate works buddy.
You’re not really serious that there is any question whatsoever that the Democrats are railing against making BLACK people show ID are you? If so, is this done so sort of joke like The Babylon Bee would try?
 
You’re not really serious that there is any question whatsoever that the Democrats are railing against making BLACK people show ID are you? If so, is this done so sort of joke like The Babylon Bee would try?
You're not serious since you're obviously incapable of discussing what Democrats actually say rather than your made up strawmen.
 
So you admit that science plays no part in your analysis that you rely on your own personal sentiment. Not like we couldn't piece that together ourselves but it's nice to have confirmation straight from the horses mouth.
Once again, let us linger here for a minute or two. Notice that you require an absolute binary. Either something is thoroughly non-subjective and thus *scientific* or if it has a subjective element it is thoroughly non-scientific.

And note also your tendency to twist and distort what a person says, and what they mean, into what you want them to say or need them to say in order, therefore, to conform to your imposed binaries.

All perspectives of sociology, and also psychology, are within an epistemological domain that cannot be said to be *scientific*. Perception, interpretation, how se *see*, how we relate to and understand nearly everything around us -- all of this takes place outside of the domain of strict measurement and thus of *science* in the sense you seem to want to use the word.

So, what I referred to many pages back now -- in relation to film and novel -- was said by quoting Henry James the novelist (I have to paraphrase because I cannot find the quote): "If we write novels like this, how shall we write histories?" The implication being that the novelist must place herself or himself through a subjective transfer into the events of the novel. So imagine for a moment Mark Twain portraying Huck Finn or Jim. Or think of Harper Lee giving *entity* and *personality* to Scout Finch.

Yet, even though you can clearly see that this is entirely subjective process, I assume that you might be able to understand that many of the characters of fiction are given a life that has tremendous meaning. Yes, it is completely subjective, yet in this subjectivity vastly important and relevant -- and enduring -- things are expressed.

But Henry James alluded to a problem: How are we to look upon histories if they are written as novels are written? With the interjection of so much or too much *subjective content*? True, all histories are interpretive, and there is no historian that will not admit to that. But the better histories and the best historians manage -- it is assumed -- to keep themselves from injecting too much subjective content into their history.

Let us turn to this: "that science plays no part in your analysis that you rely on your own personal sentiment". For a man whose mental processes occur only through stark binaries I empathize with the limitation that has you in its grip. But your limitation, dear child, is not my limitation. And now I will state what is true and what should be obvious: all interpretation of the present occurs outside of any process that could be considered clinical science. However, this does not mean that similar rational processes, demanding rational viewing and analysis, are not a part of the process of contemporary analysis and interpretation.

Let the wheels of your mind turn on this but be sure to squirt some lubrication into your ear as I do not want the mental mechanism to freeze up!
 
You're not serious since you're obviously incapable of discussing what Democrats actually say rather than your made up strawmen.
What is it they actually “say” in Orwellian speak? How do you personally spin it to make it seem like they really aren’t saying blacks are dumb and can’t get an ID Or know the last four of their SS number?
 
I wouldn't say it's important, because nothing that happens on this site is, but it is about time you admit your arguments rely on your subjective feelings. Good for you for finally getting that off your chest. There we have it folks. She finally admits to what I've been saying for pages now.
With this: "nothing that happens on this site is (important)" I must disagree. What happens on this forum is, to quote Shakespeare, "The abstract and brief chronicle of the time". What happens here opens a window to see into the mental, conceptual, perceptual, and also the spiritual inner-dimensions of the people who determine what goes on in the cultural sphere.

I admit to you that to look into this *window* produces dismay and sadness because the levels and depth of idiocy are really alarming when one has something of a superior sort to compare it with. The level of social and cultural discourse that is possible is dragged down into ridiculous mud by so many people who are *captured* by mindless impulses. But what this means -- what I take it to mean -- is that we are all deficient, that we are all *afflicted*, and that we all suffer as a result of *dumbing-down* (to quote C. Iserbyt).

But how can I illustrate this to you -- *scientifically*? It cannot be done. When I say *dumbing down* I do not mean that the IQ of people has been diminished, that is unlikely. It is that they are not exposed (enough) to a rigorous intellectual program. But there is more in my view. And I have spoken of this directly to you in the past and you no more understood it then than you will be able to now! It has to do with the effect of disconnection from metaphysical influences on which intellect (intellectus) is established and depends. You have lived into your fourth decade, brutish Caliban, and you have not been able to discern any of this! You will not get it now and you will not get it during the duration of the years left to you, so it would appear!

But that does not mean that other people cannot *get it*. This is why I say "You are perfect for all this". I fiddle, you dance.

When we deal on *The Culture Wars* we are dealing, essentially, on metaphysical questions! Now when I refer to metaphysics in this sense I mean 'higher dimensions of thought' and not necessarily the realm of God or of the angels. Metaphysics is a complex topic. For the sake of this exposition, then, the defining elements in The Culture Wars turn on 'value & meaning'. And value & meaning are metaphysical.

Are they *real* in the sense that your car sitting there on the street is real? No. Yet they have tremendously more power and relevance than any object in the physical world. Because they have to do (and are located in) psyche. Don't bother to click, don't bother to read, it will strain your too-strained mind! Just know that it is the psyche of man that moves the entire world! Everything that is of our world, man's world, extends from the psyche (though how the psyche is defined varies).

So *subjective feeling* cannot be shunted out of the picture, not by any means. However, what is felt and the way it is felt and expressed can be examined. Must be examined. And here we must refer to 'the discerning self'. A self that is capable of self-seeing, self-analysis. And who shall we bring forward as an example of this? Who? The shrieking girl? That bellowing lunatic who heard the bad news of Trump's win and Hilary's loss and melted down into a tragic emotional puddle?!?

I ask you to please use a part of your mind and intelligence that I believe I can guide you to and that I can rely on to at least imagine it possible that you see, if only dimly, what I am getting at here. Do I have to repeat this again & again & again & again and to observe that you simply cannot understand the most basic and necessary things!?

Yes, obviously, but long ago I resolved myself to the task. I will not give up on you as long as you show even the dimmest will.

When we deal within the domains of *meaning & value* we are firmly within subjective territory. But this does not mean a territory of *whatever* or of *anything*. One subjectivity -- let us say that of a brute -- is not equal to the subjectivity of an advanced, cultured, sensitive, intellectually trained, literate person. And I did mention to you an exponent of a very advanced English school Mr Aldous Huxley. There you have a man who dealt in *subjective territory* but who did so having all the skills I mentioned.

So now I have *set the stage* to be able to talk about all that stands behind The Culture Wars. But you will not be able to go any further than your scandalous obstinacy!

But other people read here . . .
 
Last edited:
Once again, let us linger here for a minute or two. Notice that you require an absolute binary. Either something is thoroughly non-subjective and thus *scientific* or if it has a subjective element it is thoroughly non-scientific.

And note also your tendency to twist and distort what a person says, and what they mean, into what you want them to say or need them to say in order, therefore, to conform to your imposed binaries.
That's something you cry about quite often so allow to paint a picture with your own words. These are direct quotes.
The reason I have this position is because I observe — I can refer to this forum as an example — that those who oppose the structured ideas that are being enunciated and explored by the Dissident Right, do not do so through what I am calling *structured argument* but nearly always through emotional display, hysterical opposition, and the employment of hot terms like *racist* and like *Nazi*.
Structured argument is debate. It includes facts. It allows for criticism. You on the other hand, who claim to be about *structured debate* turns around and say this.
Alizia Tyler said:
Yet I have told you, quite clearly, that I am not interested in the debate that interests you. So what I try to do is to write small essays where I deal on a complete idea, something that seems relevant or important. When challenged — as with the *function* of movies as cultural texts and my comment on 12 Years A Slave — I did try to fill out the idea better. I think the idea I am working with is sound, I think I expressed it clearly, but I see no point in debating it with you.
My point is these distractions don't fit with your claim that you are interested in structured arguments, your interested in monologuing your personal sentiments and trying to pass them off as arguments.
Alizia Tyler said:
And I did say, and I still believe, that the film 12 Years A Slave is an important *text* that can be read. True it is that this is subjective territory.
How many pages now have we wasted on your personal grievance with 12 Years a Slave?

More to the point, what are these *structured arguments* of the Dissident Right? Put aside the strawmen and advocate whatever policies with whatever intellectual arguments you can manage.
 
What is it they actually “say” in Orwellian speak? How do you personally spin it to make it seem like they really aren’t saying blacks are dumb and can’t get an ID Or know the last four of their SS number?
You're the one with spin trying to pass off your comments as those of Democrats. Again, not sure if you're aware, but your name appears right over your posts. 😂
 
My point is these distractions don't fit with your claim that you are interested in structured arguments, your interested in monologuing your personal sentiments and trying to pass them off as arguments.
Well, it is my view that by approaching conversation in this way that we can, to a larger degree, by-pass all the bickering and try to get to the essence of the divisions. That is why I said: So what I try to do is to write small essays where I deal on a complete idea, something that seems relevant or important.

For this reason I just made an effort to speak to, to answer in a way, your concern (or whatever it is) about subjectivity.

But none of this matters in your specific case! You are incapable of *getting it* and you stumble, time and again, over the most basic concepts, ideas and notions.

So you become the topic! My interest is in getting to the bottom of how it is that *you* have come on the scene (the cultural and social scene) with such force & power.

Is this beginning to make sense?!?
 
You're the one with spin trying to pass off your comments as those of Democrats. Again, not sure if you're aware, but your name appears right over your posts. 😂
So it is not Democrats saying voter ID laws disenfranchise BLACK voters? It is only me saying this and claiming it is Democrats? Are you serious?
 
How many pages now have we wasted on your personal grievance with 12 Years a Slave?
I'd put it a bit differently, but it is not flattering to you: I have spent many posts trying to explain very basic things to a couple of people

::: clip, clop, clip, clop :::

who have tremendous difficulty in understanding things that are just not that hard to get.

How we describe this is, perhaps, a challenge:

Our present is driven by 'manipulated subjectivies'.​
The abandonment of people in their *subjectivity* produces people strangely atomized and separate, intellectually, spiritually, mentally, from others to such a degree that they live in separate worlds, even if they are sitting ont he same park bench in the same sunlight.​
That our TV or screen culture has become, and perhaps is, the message-medium, referring to​
"The medium is the message" is a phrase coined by the Canadian communication theorist Marshall McLuhan and the name of the first chapter in his Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, published in 1964​
which determines how we view *the world* but which has become so much a battle ground that *our world* is akin to that represented in The Matrix: we are trapped in unreal subjectivities, deranged subjectivities, which require the introduction of some curative rationalism . . .​

Come on, help me out here! 😳
 
Every one here knows it is black people that the elitists think are too dumb to get an ID and are somehow Disenfranchised if they can’t vote 24/7 or find their polling place.

Your words. And a poorly formed conclusion, albeit one frequently found among those who know Trump was a better president than Biden is / could ever be.
 
Your words. And a poorly formed conclusion, albeit one frequently found among those who know Trump was a better president than Biden is / could ever be.
Prove it.
 
So it is not Democrats saying voter ID laws disenfranchise BLACK voters?

It is mostly Dems today who review the impact of these changes in rules and along with current gerrymandering and ask if any particular types of people are more impacted. And the groups negatively impacted include more than Black voters.
 

This is not worth my time. Others have done so already and you refuse to seriously see the evidence. You are steadfast in your opinion, regardless of what info is provided to you.
 
But none of this matters in your specific case! You are incapable of *getting it*

Thus you dismiss someone who takes the time to explain how they find fault in your analysis.

Appears that if someone does not agree with you it is because they are incapable. (this is one way to "win" a debate).
 
But how can I illustrate this to you -- *scientifically*? It cannot be done. When I say *dumbing down* I do not mean that the IQ of people has been diminished, that is unlikely. It is that they are not exposed (enough) to a rigorous intellectual program.
Well that actually can be researched.
Much of the growth in ideological consistency has come among better educated adults – including a striking rise in the share who have across-the-board liberal views, which is consistent with the growing share of postgraduates who identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party .
That's the difference between specious essays and structured arguments. One has supported research and facts and the other is your admittedly subjective perspective.
But there is more in my view. And I have spoken of this directly to you in the past and you no more understood it then than you will be able to now! It has to do with the effect of disconnection from metaphysical influences on which intellect (intellectus) is established and depends.
Research seems to suggest otherwise.
When we deal on *The Culture Wars* we are dealing, essentially, on metaphysical questions! Now when I refer to metaphysics in this sense I mean 'higher dimensions of thought' and not necessarily the realm of God or of the angels.
Remind me again of the hierarchy of higher dimensional thought. Is the realm of God and Angels above or below the realm of Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny? 😂
Metaphysics is a complex topic. For the sake of this exposition, then, the defining elements in The Culture Wars turn on 'value & meaning'. And value & meaning are metaphysical.

Are they *real* in the sense that your car sitting there on the street is real? No. Yet they have tremendously more power and relevance than any object in the physical world.

So *subjective feeling* cannot be shunted out of the picture, not by any means.
I never suggested they were. In fact I said right from the start that all these notions of right and wrong or good and bad rest on subjective notions of morality. That has been my argument from the start. We can have objective arguments on who's side is more educated, like the link I provided above shows that can have an objective answer, but notions like what ideologies or beliefs we find to be good or bad are entirely subjective. When you complain that opposition to white wing ideologies are emotional it worth pointing out that your promotion of White wing ideology is also emotional.
However, what is felt and the way it is felt and expressed can be examined. Must be examined.
😂

Why so dramatic? We absolutely can examine it but calm down.
And here we must refer to 'the discerning self'. A self that is capable of self-seeing, self-analysis. And who shall we bring forward as an example of this? Who? The shrieking girl? That bellowing lunatic who heard the bad news of Trump's win and Hilary's loss and melted down into a tragic emotional puddle?!?
Why her? Why not the people you're actually in a conversation with right here? You know someone who can respond to you with a back and forth. I don't need to invoke the lunacy of the Capitol riots to pick apart your weak arguments.
When we deal within the domains of *meaning & value* we are firmly within subjective territory. But this does not mean a territory of *whatever* or of *anything*. One subjectivity -- let us say that of a brute -- is not equal to the subjectivity of an advanced, cultured, sensitive, intellectually trained, literate person.
If that's your argument then you don't understand what subjectivity is. Different people value different things and those things are neither right or wrong but particular to them. It is the other side to objectivity, things who's value we can discern through measurement and observation.
 
Last edited:
So it is not Democrats saying voter ID laws disenfranchise BLACK voters? It is only me saying this and claiming it is Democrats? Are you serious?
Now that is something I have seen Democratic reps say. That's a whole lot different than your earlier claim that they said black people were too stupid to get an ID.
 
Appears that if someone does not agree with you it is because they are incapable
In the case of some, yes. In relation to the specific recent question, it definitely appears so.

Are you aware what that issue is? Could you state it if asked? Would you make that effort here please?
 
In the case of some, yes. In relation to the specific recent question, it definitely appears so.

Are you aware what that issue is? Could you state it if asked? Would you make that effort here please?
The issue is your white wing ideology is a loser ideology and so you've concocted a fantasy where you're a loser because people just don't have the capacity to understand how brilliant you are.
 
It is mostly Dems today who review the impact of these changes in rules and along with current gerrymandering and ask if any particular types of people are more impacted. And the groups negatively impacted include more than Black voters.
Now we are moving the goal posts to Gerrymeandering to divert and deflect the topic to another arena. Gerrymandering was never discussed by me. That is not a subject mentioned by Dems Or if they do, rarely and is just a smokescreen.
other than this diversionary tactic of alleged gerrymandering what rules affect “particular types of people” and what is it with you guys that you can admit you mean BLACKS?
 
This is not worth my time. Others have done so already and you refuse to seriously see the evidence. You are steadfast in your opinion, regardless of what info is provided to you.
Thus is like “masks work….,just believe me”
 
Back
Top Bottom