|
Note: I only put U.S. in the title so everyone knows what country I'm talking about. Obviously, everyone is welcome to comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, I hang out with a group of people every weekend. Maybe they're friends, maybe they're acquaintances, I don't particularly care. They're fun to hang around, but the downside is that they are extremely, aggressively, patently conservative.
I don't have a problem with conservatives. I consider myself a moderate conservative. However, I don't feel like just because someone can't afford health care that they "deserve to die." That's the mindset these guys have on almost every issue.
However, that's just one thing I disagree on. This debate started out on an entirely different subject: gay marriage.
In my opinion, the federal government has a place in settling this issue, if only because of the precedent in aiding the Civil Rights and Women's Rights movements. My friends think that the government has no place in telling people who they can and cannot marry. The way I see it, churches are starting to become more accepting of same-sex couples (my church is going to start doing unions just next month, and this is in the South). I dunno, maybe the government doesn't need to step in. Maybe it'll just happen on its own. On the other hand, people have the right to petition the government to step in, and if they choose to step in, that's their prerogative.
But that's not even the main meat of our discussion. One of my friends said something that utterly confused me,
"Segregation would have ended sooner without the federal government"
Sooner? What? Did I miss something? They then went on to tell me that everyone has the right to hate whoever they want, and discriminate against whoever they want, BUT that they should prepare to be ruined economically. So a white guy saying no blacks allowed in his store would be financially ruined because no black people would shop there. Then he brought up the example of the Irish, and how they were discriminated against but overcame it by coming together and starting their own businesses etc.
That all sounds fine and dandy, but my counter argument was that black people didn't (and still don't) have as much economic clout as white people. Now, I've had another adult in the past week tell me that this isn't true, which makes me suspect that I'm surrounded by closet racists.
I realize this post is all over the place, but the discussion in question happened last week. Oh yeah, they also said the Democratic party is basically a slave party, because they made you dependent on welfare blah blah blah.
Anyways, tell me what you guys think.
 
|
It's possible for massive cultural upheaval to happen from the ground up, but not probable (and not without a hell of a lot of conflict). The government imposing civil rights from the top down can be interpreted as quite authoritarian, but it's the fastest and most effective way to do it. If your friends find that distasteful it's more of a philosophical revulsion than a practical one.
|
I think the segregation would have ended earlier argument would come from laissez-faire type thinking that nobody segregates because it would make no sense as it would hurt you economicaly.
|
On May 19 2012 00:53 iamperfection wrote:
I think the segregation would have ended earlier argument would come from laissez-faire type thinking that nobody segregates because it would make no sense as it would hurt you economicaly.
yeah, but are they then seriously making the assumption that non-whites have the same economic power/monetary value than whites? especially at that time ( and fuck, even now)???
segregation by race would have been replaced by segregation by money -- and ... that ends up being segregation by race because of blacks being shit poor with few exceptions and whites being distributed pretty evenly all across the spectrum.
|
Let's see... aboriginal natives plucked from their continent in chains, sold like cattle, working for food and shelter for someone else their whole lives, finally released from slavery but without actually owning anything, living as a minority in an incredibly exclusionary society, and they're supposed to be on equal footing with white land owners economically? That sounds slightly illogical. I dunno, could just be me.
|
Did you mention the fact that STATE governments were largely responsible for governmental segregation, and that the civil rights movement is a perfect example of a situation in which federal action was needed to reel in local authorities who were obviously trampling on the rights of thousands?
|
My advice would just be to attempt to avoid political discussions if you want to continue hanging out with them. It doesn't really sound like they're going to change their minds.
|
I could see to an extent that it would have ended eventually without a federal government (likely as more people such as MLK jr. appeared for example), but I don't think it would have been faster without them. It is important to consider that since this is present in the context of America that we consider American values, including things like the past history of America. As I see it, even though our legal branch implements many different laws, often times many people don't follow them right away. This leads me to believe that people wouldn't follow them if they weren't laws, which therefore leads me to the conclusion that without the Federal Government's involvement, the process might not even happen at all.
|
On May 19 2012 01:53 Attican wrote:
My advice would just be to attempt to avoid political discussions if you want to continue hanging out with them. It doesn't really sound like they're going to change their minds.
Its also important to keep in mind they may not actually believe what they say. For example the deserve to die comment usally comes more from a generalization of " this is bull shit why do i have to pay for other peoples healthcare" instead of being presented an actual example or specific person.
|
+ Show Spoiler +I think you may be surrounded by closet racists as well.
DO NOT ASK. DO NOT TELL. We have a mutual agreement of not talking about politics, religion and etc. Seriously the only time I discussed agressively with a friend of mine was because we broke this agreement.
|
I didn't catch an argument to 'settle'. Sounds to me like you wanted your political prejudices justified.
Just remember that boiling things down to 'everyone who disagrees with me is a horrible person', especially when you start calling people racists, is the tool of the weak-minded.
|
I think there's a difference between conservatives and tea party crazies. Anyways, the Healthcare debate is really a question of can we really afford to add to the debt right now? I personally believe in a small government with just enough power to regulate commerce as needed, and some things should not be for-profit...Healthcare is one of them in my opinion because I believe we have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness... and being in crippling debt because you could not afford healthcare is counterproductive to that end.
I also don't like social security because I feel it's a ponzi scheme.
|
On May 19 2012 03:56 Jerubaal wrote:
I didn't catch an argument to 'settle'. Sounds to me like you wanted your political prejudices justified.
Just remember that boiling things down to 'everyone who disagrees with me is a horrible person', especially when you start calling people racists, is the tool of the weak-minded.
Fine, let me boil it down for you: was the federal government's involvement in the civil rights movement justified? Do you think that black people had enough economic clout to compete with white people financially?
I said yes and no, respectively. They said no and yes, respectively.
I don't think they're horrible people. I don't even disagree with their principles. I just think that there's a more humane and just way to do things than letting people die and suffer.
|
On May 19 2012 03:56 Jerubaal wrote:
I didn't catch an argument to 'settle'. Sounds to me like you wanted your political prejudices justified.
Just remember that boiling things down to 'everyone who disagrees with me is a horrible person', especially when you start calling people racists, is the tool of the weak-minded.
So what you're saying essentially is:
- The weak-minded find credible and valid information to present a point of view to others, especially when they feel a conviction about their own point of view.
- The strong-minded just go "Ah, let's not argue."
Well, look - there is a very unusual stigma about being labeled as a "racist" in the United States. Most people only admit to racism in joking, or where there is anonymity, or in certain cases where they just don't care. When it really comes down to the specific issues regarding civil rights and the emancipation, that's where prejudice really starts to come out of hiding. In reality, racism is often bred from ignorance (or poor educating from parents) and when ignorance arises, it's almost instinctive to 'correct' it. For example, you feel as though Jeeeeeeeohn is overreaching by insinuating that his friends are possibly closeted racists, and have suggested to him that he change his behavior. That is a very strange dichotomy of ideas; juxtaposing your correction of someone else's thought process with another train of thought which also similarly is objectively attempting to correct yet another person's thought process. We in debate business refer to this mode of argument as "hypocrisy". I'm not attempting to 'correct' you though; that would be frivolous and be an Inceptionesque hypocrisy within an argument about hypocrisy.
|
Just like you I have great difficulty in arguing with American conservatives. They are - as Noam Chomsky put it - so far off the spectrum of political sanity that I find it hard to find common ground for even a discussion of issues. When I first took an interest in American politics in the early 1990s, the US Republicans were a moderately conservative party with a high degree of common sense. Since then, however, the party has been highjacked by right-wing fanatics and religious extremists. The fact that Romney looks somewhat reasonable compared to the clowns he was running against in the Republican primaries says it all.
I was born and raised in a Western European country that has a very socially progressive conservative party. So for all my life I have been voting for that party mainly based on their economic agenda - which unlike the Republicans' in the US - does not so outrageously focus on the welfare of the super rich. (I guess we all remember George Bush's TEXAS TAX CUT MASSACRE) In the US, however, I could never imagine voting for the Republican candidate. If I was American, I'd vote Nader (yes, I know, he's not in this race).
So far I've been hesitant to discuss politics on Teamliquid because I didn't - and to some extend still don't - see the point in discussing politics on a gaming site with people whom I'll never meet anyway, but I guess I will make occasionaly comments on politics on my own blog here from now on:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=291122
|
Much though I'll hate myself in the morning, I will against common sense and sure knowledge that many political differences can be settled in the way of Burr and Hamilton comment upon your "issue". Taking into mind the letter and spirit of the Constitution, with knowledge of the type of men who drafted and championed it, I will say "Yes."
1) If IN FACT marriage is a religious institution (one man, one woman, sacred Holy matrimony, etc) then, because the State cannot endorse any form of religious institution over any other religious institution (Freedom of Religion - it means all of them, even the ones people don't like) the state cannot take any legal notice of the validity or invalidity of any form of marriage. It is not a problem for the state to concern itself over, being essentially a form of religious expression of devotion both to another human being and to the divine.
2) If IN FACT marriage is a secular legal tradition deriving from long standing practice, then the State must regulate marriage in accordance with the statement that all men are created equally, and are all endowed with certain inalienable rights. (The Founders, at least the one that wrote that statement, did in fact mean ALL men.) Which means that, like paying taxes or applying for a government job, the State cannot discriminate against any union on the basis of sex or sexual orientation. All applications must be accepted using the same criteria, and that criteria cannot be discriminatory. Ergo, the State must in fact enforce that equality and the State does in fact have a very important role in regulating marriage.
Pick your standpoint. Either way you look at it, people can marry whatever/whoever they want so long as all are consenting adults and no one is planning on stabbing anyone else.
Also, please reference Foamy the Squirrel in his latest video for a clear explanation.
Lastly, in reading the OP, I see a horrible example using the Irish. To be clear, the Irish did not "overcome" adversity in the fashion that he thinks they did. The Irish immigrants did, to an extent, build their own businesses... just as did the Italians, Polish, Swedish, Russian, and Chinese (etc) immigrants. The Irish did however tend to get employment as firefighters, police officers, and public officials - and no one really cares where you're from or if you're name's O'Hanrahan if you've just stopped their home from burning down.
A postscript - Democrats, Republicans, they are both the same in the sole issue that counts. They don't care about you, or your town, or your state - they care about increasing their personal power, and then the power of their party. Few are exceptions, and they should all be tossed out. Where the hell are the goddamned Tories when you need them?
|
I don't generally resort to calling names in political discussions, and I don't mean to cause offense, but I think your friends might be entitled white people. The biggest reason I'm okay with doing this is because both the comparison and the argument are off-base, unfocused, and just generally silly notions of people who actually don't know anything about anything that they talk about.
It's hard to say whether segregation would have ended sooner or later without the government, because it's hard to really say what "without the government" means. Do they mean that if Jim Crow had never made it into law (interesting note, Jim Crow laws weren't federal laws, may want to point that out) and that simultaneously the Civil Rights Act had never made it into law, that segregation would have ended faster? Probably not, as the economic argument is absurd (local businesses were doing just fine segregated). But I don't have a crystal ball, so who knows. It's kind of an unbalanced argument regardless, as Jim Crow was a local set of laws that were eventually laid to rest by the Civil Rights Act, a federal bill. It is worth noting that if some economic imperative could have been created to desegregate the country, it's true that it would have happened a lot faster, but I don't think "allowing segregation to be legal" would have done it.
Anybody who tells you that black people don't have as much economic clout as white people do, in general, needs to google the words cycle of poverty. Hardcore, head-in-the-sand conservatives in general don't like the notion that it's actually difficult and improbable that someone can break out of poverty even if they're willing to work really really hard, but they also aren't especially fans of the notion that being ranked 37th in the world for overall quality of health care wasn't just a typo for "NUMBER ONE BABY USA USA USA," either, so I guess that's not shocking.
Your friends are right that the government cannot, and should not, tell churches who they can and cannot marry. That is entirely up to them. But you need to remind them that marriage is not a religious institution in the US, it's a political one, which comes with a number of very important rights.
As an aside, your friends are racists, but not in the traditional "OMG BLACK PEOPLE SO INFERIOR" sense. Racism can simply be a lack of understanding and a lack of desire to understand the way in which race works in this country. It's not a travesty not to understand - in fact, it's hard to understand if you don't grow up in it. It IS a travesty to believe that you DO understand, and tell people who disagree with you that they're reverse racists. It's kinda a loaded word, but then again, it's incredibly complicated underneath the surface.
Hope this helps.
|
There's one concrete way to settle this. You must make them face the same hardships they speak out against and see if their hypothesis holds true. So what you need to do is get one of them fired. Call one of their bosses wives and talk really dirty to them pretending to be one of your buddies. Now that your buddy is unemployed, make sure he can't get a new job. Have him use you as a reference and get passive aggressive when potential employees call. Perhaps plant some drugs on him and rat on him to the cops.
After a few months of being a poor guy who's fighting to make ends meet, see to it that he meets an accident. Nothing that's going to kill him, but close. As he's laying in the hospital bed, get your buddies together for a beer and ask your friend how he feels about the healthcare issue now. If he holds true and says he deserves to die because he can't pay the bill; then he is indeed a hardcore conservative. If not (I suspect this is going to be the case), he's a hypocrit who only holds his views because he's ignorant and it fits his former station.
It's a hard experiment to control, but perhaps you can check out this documentary on a similar experiment.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086465/
But, seriously though, your friends sound like bigots and like ignorant people in general. Perhaps this is just personal bias, I personally can't stand hardcore conservatives; but I would say that anyone who holds the postion that you deserve to die if you can't afford healthcare, etc probably isn't a person worth talking to.
|
"My friends think that the government has no place in telling people who they can and cannot marry"
I'm confused, they support gay marriage then? The state is telling people who they cannot marry right now. You don't have to get married in a church, and no one is trying to force churches to marry LBGT individuals. Also it sounds like they are being fed bullshit by real racists/insane libertarians that exist in a lot of right wing news sources but can't separate the crazy from the truth.
|
Some people, like Faulkner, believe that the Federal State's involvement in the end of slavery was a mistake. It may seem counter-intuitive, but it makes sense.
We need to remember a few things first. First, Lincoln's decision was mostly political. By freeing black men, he struck a great blow to the economy of the southern states, which relied heavily on slave labour. Lincoln himself is known to have considered african-american people "as men, but not as brothers". He was originally distant to the idea that slavery had to come to an end, but rushed it to gain a military advantage in the war.
What were the negative consequences of the North's victory, then? Well, Faulkner said that slaves should've been freed by southerners, because the fact that their freedom was imposed by the north made it seem illegitimate in the eyes of the people. Not only that, but the Federal State didn't want to get any deeper in this problem, and didn't do much to ensure that black people would become true citizens. As a result, the situation of blacks was technically the same. They weren't the legal property of someone anymore, but in reality they were, as laws quickly defined their citizenship as inferior and as poverty tied them to their old masters anyway.
This was the birth of the KKK and of the strong segregation that is still rampant in the south of the US.
I still believe that it was a necessity to impose this on the southern people, but here is some food for thought.
A counter-argument lies within this story actually, in the sense that it proves that not only is the Federal State effective and strong in introducing change, but that US history is based on the prevalence of the federal unity. All of the US' successes come from the fact that all countries united under a same banner, which is why the European Union was created in the first place. Unity is power! I don't get people who follow Ron Paul or any other man who wants to sabotage US dominance, but hey, if you want to blow up your empire yourselves, be my guest, as long as we can get a piece of what is left. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
WCS
Heroes of the Storm
