Politics Episode 8: WWF Edition

[Gromnir]

*eye roll*

 

the problem with the civil rights act(s) is it took at least 99 years longer than it shoulda' for Congress to pass such legislation.  in 1954, SCOTUS lost patience and hijacked legislative prerogative in an attempt to do the right thing.  unfortunately, the Court simple didn't have the means to implement public school bus policies or desegregation plans. an additional decade o' chaos were resulting while Congress waited to act.  

 

what is most terrible 'bout the civil rights act(s) is not its flaws.  the necessary compromises and practical considerations inherent in any such legislation is gonna elicit justified criticism. nope, the terrible truth is Congress were genuine representing the will o' the people in denying basic freedoms to many of her citizens.   near a century o' delay were resulting 'cause America, as a whole, weren't ready or desirous o' national civil rights legislation.  democracy is a wonderful thing until you realize just how much people suck.

 

yeah, numerous states got their act together much earlier than the 1960s.  in 1850, the State supreme court of massachusetts rejected a constitutional plea for school desegregation.  in response, the State legislature of massachusetts desegregated schools... in 1855. almost 100 years before brown v. board, individual US states were doing the right thing. by 1954 almost half o' US states had implemented school desegregation.  'course such a recognition were meaning 'bout 1/2 o' US states were still having state-approved segregation. individual States making positive progress were the ideal method o' change, but nothing Constitutional would preclude the national legislative body from stepping up and doing right. took a civil war and near 100 years for Congress to step up.  national embarrassment.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited July 4, 2017 by Gromnir

[Hurlshort]

Not a huge surprise that Val would call the Civil Right Acts an abomination. But of course historical context is a difficulty for him, and not many would argue against the Civil Rights Acts being immensely important given the setting of 1960's America.

 

(This is where Val will insert some lazy joke about school teachers.)

[Ben No.3]

*eye roll*

 

the problem with the civil rights act(s) is it took at least 99 years longer than it shoulda' for Congress to pass such legislation. in 1954, SCOTUS lost patience and hijacked legislative prerogative in an attempt to do the right thing. unfortunately, the Court simple didn't have the means to implement public school bus policies or desegregation plans. an additional decade o' chaos were resulting while Congress waited to act.

 

what is most terrible 'bout the civil rights act(s) is not its flaws. the necessary compromises and practical considerations inherent in any such legislation is gonna elicit justified criticism. nope, the terrible truth is Congress were genuine representing the will o' the people in denying basic freedoms to many of her citizens. near a century o' delay were resulting 'cause America, as a whole, weren't ready or desirous o' national civil rights legislation. democracy is a wonderful thing until you realize just how much people suck.

 

yeah, numerous states got their act together much earlier than the 1960s. in 1850, the State supreme court of massachusetts rejected a constitutional plea for school desegregation. in response, the State legislature of massachusetts desegregated schools... in 1855. almost 100 years before brown v. board, individual US states were doing the right thing. by 1954 almost half o' US states had implemented school desegregation. 'course such a recognition were meaning 'bout 1/2 o' US states were still having state-approved segregation. individual States making positive progress were the ideal method o' change, but nothing Constitutional would preclude the national legislative body from stepping up and doing right. took a civil war and near 100 years for Congress to step up. national embarrassment.

 

HA! Good Fun!

I heard ppl say that the civil rights movement was hugely thrown back during the beginning of the Cold War due to many members flatterance with the (far)left, is there any truth to this?

[Pidesco]

"flatterance"?

[Ben No.3]

"flatterance"?

Not an official alliance with, but notches towards.

[Raithe]

Also, since there are those political celebrations happening on the other side of the Atlantic today, to our American friends I have to say, enjoy yourselves and..

 

[Guard Dog]

Following Raithe:

 

 

Yeah! We showed the British with their Townshend Acts regulations and taxes (yes Hurlshot I know they repealed the stamp act with that. Work with me here). Can you believe it they were taxing us almost 9%. Can you believe that? 9%. Tea, sugar, glass, paper, cotton, hogs, all taxed. Well, we showed them! Now our tax rate is... it's.... wait... what the F--K happened here?

 

Well, at least we get a say in our government now. Wait.... we do don't we?

 

[Raithe]

To be fair Guard... the tax thing wasn't the huge deal. It was you colonials wanting to grab more land from the natives we had treaties with. That was another one of those big reasons for getting rid of us. So you didn't have to deal with the treaties protecting them from land grabs.  

[Guard Dog]

To be fair Guard... the tax thing wasn't the huge deal. It was you colonials wanting to grab more land from the natives we had treaties with. That was another one of those big reasons for getting rid of us. So you didn't have to deal with the treaties protecting them from land grabs.  

 

Nah, that really didn't become a thing until later. Remember a lot of the indian tribes fought with the French during the war in the 1760's. 

 

On a tangent I was working on an Indian reservation in Minnesota a few years ago and became friendly with the school superintendent. (I was installing Wi-Fi in the schools) We had a conversation once that if the American Revolution had failed the indian nations would have had their own country eventually and been treated better by the British. I laughed at that and told him there is an actual country called India whose people are called also Indians who would disagree with you there. Don't confuse the Britain of today with the one from the 1700's. 

[Raithe]

 

To be fair Guard... the tax thing wasn't the huge deal. It was you colonials wanting to grab more land from the natives we had treaties with. That was another one of those big reasons for getting rid of us. So you didn't have to deal with the treaties protecting them from land grabs.  

 

Nah, that really didn't become a thing until later. Remember a lot of the indian tribes fought with the French during the war in the 1760's. 

 

On a tangent I was working on an Indian reservation in Minnesota a few years ago and became friendly with the school superintendent. (I was installing Wi-Fi in the schools) We had a conversation once that if the American Revolution had failed the indian nations would have had their own country eventually and been treated better by the British. I laughed at that and told him there is an actual country called India whose people are called also Indians who would disagree with you there. Don't confuse the Britain of today with the one from the 1700's. 

 

 

Possibly yes, possibly no.

 

You should realise that the British government at the time didn't WANT India. That whole thing got stuck on us by the East India company. They kept playing the various Raj off against each other and before you knew it..bang. we were stuck with this addition to the Empire.

[Guard Dog]

 

*eye roll*

 

the problem with the civil rights act(s) is it took at least 99 years longer than it shoulda' for Congress to pass such legislation. in 1954, SCOTUS lost patience and hijacked legislative prerogative in an attempt to do the right thing. unfortunately, the Court simple didn't have the means to implement public school bus policies or desegregation plans. an additional decade o' chaos were resulting while Congress waited to act.

 

what is most terrible 'bout the civil rights act(s) is not its flaws. the necessary compromises and practical considerations inherent in any such legislation is gonna elicit justified criticism. nope, the terrible truth is Congress were genuine representing the will o' the people in denying basic freedoms to many of her citizens. near a century o' delay were resulting 'cause America, as a whole, weren't ready or desirous o' national civil rights legislation. democracy is a wonderful thing until you realize just how much people suck.

 

yeah, numerous states got their act together much earlier than the 1960s. in 1850, the State supreme court of massachusetts rejected a constitutional plea for school desegregation. in response, the State legislature of massachusetts desegregated schools... in 1855. almost 100 years before brown v. board, individual US states were doing the right thing. by 1954 almost half o' US states had implemented school desegregation. 'course such a recognition were meaning 'bout 1/2 o' US states were still having state-approved segregation. individual States making positive progress were the ideal method o' change, but nothing Constitutional would preclude the national legislative body from stepping up and doing right. took a civil war and near 100 years for Congress to step up. national embarrassment.

 

HA! Good Fun!

I heard ppl say that the civil rights movement was hugely thrown back during the beginning of the Cold War due to many members flatterance with the (far)left, is there any truth to this?

 

 

Well... the FBI was mainly the ones behind this narrative. It's not entirely untrue. It was mostly untrue. Some parts of the Civil Rights movement did have ties to American Communist groups. Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground being the most prominent example. The Black Panthers may or may not. I'm not sure. I've read evidence both ways. But the main force of the Civil Rights movement led by Martin Luther king the accusation is totally false. But yes it was still made as a way to undermine it.  How much of an effect that had is debatable. They didn't call it The Red Scare for nothing.

[Gromnir]

am knowing this is an unpopular pov, but is our contention the Court were the biggest single obstacle to the civil rights movement. school segregation increased following brown v. board, and so too did race violence. the rate o' voluntary state desegregation were increasing in the south before 1950.  unfortunate, in many ways the south ain't never quite recovered from the civil war.  a yankee Court in washington dc creating a largely anti-southern policy and and seeming overturning the democratic process? look up the history o' george wallace for some perspective.  during wallace's first run for governor, he were endorsed by the naacp.  the Court battles led to greater polarization o' southerners.  former moderates were forced to pick sides. there were no moderates after 1954.  am not saying the Court were the only cause o' polarization, and as noted 'bove, Congress were genuine most at fault for the underlying problems, but the Court added the most fuel to the fire.

 

europeans is often misled and confused by the labels o' our political parties. when americans speak o' liberal and conservative, they mean something much different than is typical in european political arena.  our liberals and conservatives has been for many decades extreme centrist.  one reason why europeans were so enamored with obama before he were electected were 'cause he talked like a european socialist. the reality o' obama were a surprise to many.  the US political battlefield has been almost comical centrist since the mid-late 1960s... well, at least until midway through obama's second term.

 

conspiracy nonsense were almost as popular during the 50s and 60s as it is today. polarization and social unrest weren't cause o' alien intervention or shadow wars or fluoride in the water. civil right era polarization were the result o' economic and societal factors made worse by a well-intentioned Court and a handful o' political extremists.  

 

today is different.  is not the Court but the POTUS (past and current) who is most obvious responsible for polarization.  under obama and trump, americans has become increasing divided, and tweet storms and alternative facts ain't helping.  'course just as Congress were ultimate to blame for not passing the civil rights act(s) earlier, the real cause o' American polarization today is same as it were in the 1950s. Congress allowed the white middle class to become at least subjective disenfranchised, and while obama oversaw an economic recovery which ironic left african americans and other economic disadvantaged groups behind, Congress were ultimate to blame for doing nothing to correct the obvious problems resulting from increased income disparity.  

 

reasoned discourse and debate don't take place at the fringes.  the extreme left and right is peopled by true-believers and they is immune to change.  not look much further than this board to see how obtuse the folks at the the more extreme ends o' the political spectrum can be. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Valsuelm]

Not a huge surprise that Val would call the Civil Right Acts an abomination. But of course historical context is a difficulty for him, and not many would argue against the Civil Rights Acts being immensely important given the setting of 1960's America.

 

(This is where Val will insert some lazy joke about school teachers.)

 

I challenge you to find a single instance of me making a joke about school teachers anywhere on this board.

 

Historical context is far from lost on me, sadly delusion isn't lost on you. Many have and did argue. In modern times those arguments are largely whitewashed and/or lost on the populace at large.

Edited July 4, 2017 by Valsuelm

[Hurlshort]

Hmm, my apologies, you are right. Although I did see a lot of posts where someone assumed something about you and you told them they were wrong. So I guess you are just tragically misunderstood?

[Guard Dog]

Val, specifically what is your beef with the Civil Rights Act? Aside from the one small part I mentioned, I'm not seeing the problem here.

[rjshae]

Now 44 States Have Refused Trump's Commission's Demand For Personal Info on Voters

 

I wonder who's left?

[Namutree]

 

 

 

 

The 'Civil rights Act' is an abomination to anyone who truly appreciates freedom.

 

I realize that you and pretty much every American, and possibly even those overseas were taught it's an amazing thing, but did you ever actually read it and objectively think about it for yourself?

 

It's got some really good things in it, I'll say that. But it's also got some downright evil things, packaged in seemingly well intentions and certainly advertised as such.

 

Some of the major problems our nation is currently facing have their origins in this legislation, and the rot is only going to go deeper until the problem is recognized.

 

Tip: If something is downright taboo to question, if some of the masses kneejerk flipout at the questioning of it as they've been conditioned to do, you should seriously take a deep look at it. And from experience, chances are high that if you do, things are not as they are going to be as you were told they were, and probably even believed they were: at least in part, but possibly even in whole.

 

Primary sources are an amazing thing. The truth to a lot of things are out there if one bothers to look. And the truth isn't always pretty.

 

 

Or that restaurants and other public business could restrict their customers. If it's open to the public it has to be open to all the public.

 

Business' are privately owned. A PRIVATE business has every right to dictate who can and cannot receive their services. If you don't like how they do things; you take your business elsewhere or start your own.

 

As a libertarian I'd expect you to know better. It's social engineering (NOT A LEGITIMATE FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT) at the expense of property rights. Val is right; the bill in such respects is an abomination. 

[Ben No.3]

 

 

 

 

 

The 'Civil rights Act' is an abomination to anyone who truly appreciates freedom.

 

I realize that you and pretty much every American, and possibly even those overseas were taught it's an amazing thing, but did you ever actually read it and objectively think about it for yourself?

 

It's got some really good things in it, I'll say that. But it's also got some downright evil things, packaged in seemingly well intentions and certainly advertised as such.

 

Some of the major problems our nation is currently facing have their origins in this legislation, and the rot is only going to go deeper until the problem is recognized.

 

Tip: If something is downright taboo to question, if some of the masses kneejerk flipout at the questioning of it as they've been conditioned to do, you should seriously take a deep look at it. And from experience, chances are high that if you do, things are not as they are going to be as you were told they were, and probably even believed they were: at least in part, but possibly even in whole.

 

Primary sources are an amazing thing. The truth to a lot of things are out there if one bothers to look. And the truth isn't always pretty.

 

Or that restaurants and other public business could restrict their customers. If it's open to the public it has to be open to all the public.

Business' are privately owned. A PRIVATE business has every right to dictate who can and cannot receive their services. If you don't like how they do things; you take your business elsewhere or start your own.

 

As a libertarian I'd expect you to know better. It's social engineering (NOT A LEGITIMATE FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT) at the expense of property rights. Val is right; the bill in such respects is an abomination.

I've said it before and I will say it again: freedom a d equality can only go hand in hand. If I leave one with the ability, or the freedom if you will, to take others freedom through whatever form of, let's be honest, more or less randomly created social hierarchy (race, sex, wealth, inheritance, faith,...), nothing is won.

[Namutree]

 

 

 

 

 

The 'Civil rights Act' is an abomination to anyone who truly appreciates freedom.

 

I realize that you and pretty much every American, and possibly even those overseas were taught it's an amazing thing, but did you ever actually read it and objectively think about it for yourself?

 

It's got some really good things in it, I'll say that. But it's also got some downright evil things, packaged in seemingly well intentions and certainly advertised as such.

 

Some of the major problems our nation is currently facing have their origins in this legislation, and the rot is only going to go deeper until the problem is recognized.

 

Tip: If something is downright taboo to question, if some of the masses kneejerk flipout at the questioning of it as they've been conditioned to do, you should seriously take a deep look at it. And from experience, chances are high that if you do, things are not as they are going to be as you were told they were, and probably even believed they were: at least in part, but possibly even in whole.

 

Primary sources are an amazing thing. The truth to a lot of things are out there if one bothers to look. And the truth isn't always pretty.

Or that restaurants and other public business could restrict their customers. If it's open to the public it has to be open to all the public.

Business' are privately owned. A PRIVATE business has every right to dictate who can and cannot receive their services. If you don't like how they do things; you take your business elsewhere or start your own.

 

As a libertarian I'd expect you to know better. It's social engineering (NOT A LEGITIMATE FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT) at the expense of property rights. Val is right; the bill in such respects is an abomination.

I've said it before and I will say it again: freedom a d equality can only go hand in hand. If I leave one with the ability, or the freedom if you will, to take others freedom through whatever form of, let's be honest, more or less randomly created social hierarchy (race, sex, wealth, inheritance, faith,...), nothing is won.

 

Wut? 

[Ben No.3]

 

 

 

 

The 'Civil rights Act' is an abomination to anyone who truly appreciates freedom.

 

I realize that you and pretty much every American, and possibly even those overseas were taught it's an amazing thing, but did you ever actually read it and objectively think about it for yourself?

 

It's got some really good things in it, I'll say that. But it's also got some downright evil things, packaged in seemingly well intentions and certainly advertised as such.

 

Some of the major problems our nation is currently facing have their origins in this legislation, and the rot is only going to go deeper until the problem is recognized.

 

Tip: If something is downright taboo to question, if some of the masses kneejerk flipout at the questioning of it as they've been conditioned to do, you should seriously take a deep look at it. And from experience, chances are high that if you do, things are not as they are going to be as you were told they were, and probably even believed they were: at least in part, but possibly even in whole.

 

Primary sources are an amazing thing. The truth to a lot of things are out there if one bothers to look. And the truth isn't always pretty.

Or that restaurants and other public business could restrict their customers. If it's open to the public it has to be open to all the public.

Business' are privately owned. A PRIVATE business has every right to dictate who can and cannot receive their services. If you don't like how they do things; you take your business elsewhere or start your own.

 

As a libertarian I'd expect you to know better. It's social engineering (NOT A LEGITIMATE FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT) at the expense of property rights. Val is right; the bill in such respects is an abomination.

I've said it before and I will say it again: freedom a d equality can only go hand in hand. If I leave one with the ability, or the freedom if you will, to take others freedom through whatever form of, let's be honest, more or less randomly created social hierarchy (race, sex, wealth, inheritance, faith,...), nothing is won.

And where is the freedom in forcing a private owner to run their business as government sees fit?

There is a simple rule: your freedom ends where others freedom begins.

Business owners have the right to choose whom they provide their service to. It's not taking anyone's freedom, because no one have a right to force someone else to serve them. When you opt for businesses to serve someone they don't agree to serve under the threat of penalty you opt for slavery.

one might say the same thing about actual slavery: I do indeed take away the slavers freedom to own slaves if I prohibit slavery. But doing that is central to the liberation of the slaves. So, we have a conflict between two kinds of freedom: freedom of oppression and freedom to oppress. In this case, the former should always win.

 

Similarly, the given case is a conflict between the freedom of discrimination and the freedom to discriminate. Because the freedom of discrimination is vital to a persons free life and the freedom to discriminate is not; and because I can choose wether I discriminate, but I can not choose wether I will be discriminated; the former must win.

Edited July 5, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

Business' are privately owned. A PRIVATE business has every right to dictate who can and cannot receive their services. If you don't like how they do things; you take your business elsewhere or start your own.

 

As a libertarian I'd expect you to know better. It's social engineering (NOT A LEGITIMATE FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT) at the expense of property rights. Val is right; the bill in such respects is an abomination. 

 

Privately owned but operate in the public space, serviced by public roads, etc. The Civil Right Act did in fact carve out an exception for private clubs/enterprises. Those being defined as only offering services to members not the public at large. For example, Tiger Woods won his first Masters at Augusta, but he could never join the club whose course he dominated. Well, he could now but not then. If a business operates in the public domain, uses public utilities, is a publicly traded company, if it's open to the public it must be open to all the public.

 

And yes I am a Libertarian because I'm closer to that than anything else. Libertarianisim is not anarchy. Advocating for minimal restraint is not asking for NO restraint on the individual. And I'm not 100% Libertarian. Probably 85% at best. If anyone claims to be 100% in line with any political philosophy I'd advise them to learn how to start thinking on their own before it's too late.

[Guard Dog]

 

one might say the same thing about actual slavery: I do indeed take away the slavers freedom to own slaves if I prohibit slavery. But doing that is central to the liberation of the slaves. So, we have a conflict between two kinds of freedom: freedom of oppression and freedom to oppress. In this case, the former should always win.

 

 

Similarly, the given case is a conflict between the freedom of discrimination and the freedom to discriminate. Because the freedom of discrimination is vital to a persons free life and the freedom to discriminate is not; and because I can choose wether I discriminate, but I can not choose wether I will be discriminated; the former must win.

I disagree. Slavery brakes the rule I mentioned above: Your freedom ends where another freedom begins.

Your definition of discrimination is very broad and nonsensical.

Discrimination is systemic. If based on race, gender, faith etc. you have different laws/rights we are dealing with discrimination. Interaction between two people is not discrimination and shouldn't be governed by the authorities unless there is criminal behavior involved.

 

Answer me this simple questions:

1. Do I have the right to NOT allow people in my house based on their race, gender, whatever? Yes/No.

2. If yes than why my business should follow different rules?

3. If no than why is it ok for the government to tell who I should allow in my house?

 

In your house? Yes. See my answer above for the rest.

[Ben No.3]

 

 

one might say the same thing about actual slavery: I do indeed take away the slavers freedom to own slaves if I prohibit slavery. But doing that is central to the liberation of the slaves. So, we have a conflict between two kinds of freedom: freedom of oppression and freedom to oppress. In this case, the former should always win.

 

 

Similarly, the given case is a conflict between the freedom of discrimination and the freedom to discriminate. Because the freedom of discrimination is vital to a persons free life and the freedom to discriminate is not; and because I can choose wether I discriminate, but I can not choose wether I will be discriminated; the former must win.

I disagree. Slavery brakes the rule I mentioned above: Your freedom ends where another freedom begins.

Your definition of discrimination is very broad and nonsensical.

In my book, discrimination is the exclusion of a group of people based on a shared characteristic of said people, agreed?

 

Discrimination is systemic. If based on race, gender, faith etc. you have different laws/rights we are dealing with discrimination. Interaction between two people is not discrimination and shouldn't be governed by the authorities unless there is criminal behavior involved.

If we ask wether an action should be legal, starting it's momentary legal status isn't particularly helpful

 

Answer me this simple questions:

1. Do I have the right to NOT allow people in my house based on their race, gender, whatever? Yes/No.

Yes, as you have the right to protect your private life from whatever guy conceive as an intrusion. Your space, your matter.

 

2. If yes than why my business should follow different rules?

because your business is not a private entity, you have severe effects on for example the lives of your employees and, to a lesser extent, to those of your customers.

 

3. If no than why is it ok for the government to tell who I should allow in my house?

nvm Edited July 5, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Ben No.3]

 

 

 

Business' are privately owned. A PRIVATE business has every right to dictate who can and cannot receive their services. If you don't like how they do things; you take your business elsewhere or start your own.

 

As a libertarian I'd expect you to know better. It's social engineering (NOT A LEGITIMATE FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT) at the expense of property rights. Val is right; the bill in such respects is an abomination.

Privately owned but operate in the public space, serviced by public roads, etc. The Civil Right Act did in fact carve out an exception for private clubs/enterprises. Those being defined as only offering services to members not the public at large. For example, Tiger Woods won his first Masters at Augusta, but he could never join the club whose course he dominated. Well, he could now but not then. If a business operates in the public domain, uses public utilities, is a publicly traded company, if it's open to the public it must be open to all the public.

 

And yes I am a Libertarian because I'm closer to that than anything else. Libertarianisim is not anarchy. Advocating for minimal restraint is not asking for NO restraint on the individual. And I'm not 100% Libertarian. Probably 85% at best. If anyone claims to be 100% in line with any political philosophy I'd advise them to learn how to start thinking on their own before it's too late.

Who said that about ppl being dead wrong if I agree with either you or sharp? So what happens in these cases? Edited July 5, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Hurlshort]

It's interesting that Namutree mentioned social engineering when that is exactly what you had going on before the Civil Rights Act. I assume you think it is morally reprehensible to not allow black people to sit at the same tables as white people at restaurants, etc. You had a culture of systematic and blatant discrimination in this country. It didn't happen by accident, it was engineered over centuries by one race over another. 

 

I'm not a fan of big government, but I'm not sure what you see as a solution here that doesn't involve the government. Race wars?