politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
But that wouldn’t work for say heroin.
If your state says heroin is legal and the fed says it’s illegal, you can’t really leave your state and still legally be in possession of it.
I guess you could claim you own a person in a red state but once they leave, you no longer own them?
Wasn’t that the red states’ whole complaint? That their slaves shouldn’t be considered free men once they leave?
So in conclusion, the whole states rights argument doesn’t work because what they actually wanted was to have their state’s laws apply across the country.
And this doesn’t even talk about the moral issues which imo and most people’s opinion should override the above logic anyway.
That was an actual issue in America, nice of you to point that out for me and it's also why drug prohibition was federalized.
Correct, that was their property right claim. It's nonsensical but quite a lot of wars are over nonsensical shit.
No one said it worked, they fought and lost a war about it but that doesn't actually make it not their argument nor does it imply we shouldn't teach that property rights across state lines were the cause of the civil war, not in particular slavery as slavery was never outlawed and people were still considered property until well into the 1900s.
Nuance is sometimes difficult to deal with but that doesn't mean we should pare away inconvenient truths.
Morality is subjective and therefore difficult to argue which is why they fought it as a property rights issue instead.
Everyone knows that owning other people is a topic with such significant moral subjectivity, so talking about racially justified ownership of other humans really emphasizes the need to have a nuanced perspective on property ownership.
Think about how you sound.
No one is saying slavery wasn't involved, it clearly was.
No one is saying racism is a good thing.
What I am saying is that the federal government but it's own explanation did not get involved because of racism or slavery but rather state sovereignity and succession.
Slavery may have been their reason for seceding, it isn't however the framework of their disagreement with the federal government not the reason the federal government got involved. So to say it wasn't about states rights is straight up, flat out wrong.
I can't help not notice you didn't provide any evidence for your claim that "no one cared about states rights" or that it states rights were solely a post war conjuring.
You're wrong, call me a racist I don't care since I know you're wrong and simply attacking me on a personal level says you're emotionally involved to the point you're willing to ignore actual facts in favor of feelings.
lol. You’re such a doofus. You just spent a whole bunch of time complaining about me not backing my assertions when you are not even responding to the right person.
I just think that minimizing racially justified ownership of other humans, their children, and use of extreme violence to control them is not such a neat debate over property. I don’t think that racial ownership of other humans is really a matter of such nuanced morals. It is wrong, it’s disgusting, and I find it really strange that you’re trying to bend over backwards to minimize that.
I find it interesting that you are so eagerly anticipating being called racist in this thread. Why do you think that is? What remarks have you made that you think could be interpreted as racist? Nothing says not caring about something like preemptively bringing it up.
By all means, feel free to enumerate things that I haven’t said and that nobody at all has said. It seems like you’re carrying out an argument inside your own mind and you’re somehow still losing.
You should take a break. I think you’ve lost track of what’s going on. You can’t even respond to the right person.
I know you have two separate names, sure. You're both still making the same idiotic argument blissfully unaware of nuance.
No one is minimizing it. No one said it is right either, you're being obtuse.
You already have and just did again.
What things would those be exactly?
I think you've lost track of the contention hence your bullshit about minimizing things.
If you think that this account is somehow a sock puppet of other users who disagree with you, you might have a problem. I certainly don’t secretly follow you around online just to disagree with everything you say. I also don’t have people gangstalk you or send people to knock at your door ominously.
For someone who doesn’t care about being called racist, you sure like imagining that people have called you racist. I did ask you to contemplate why you might be so eager to anticipate me calling you racist because this is only my third comment in this thread. Never before have I interacted with you.
I did ask you to reflect upon why some might consider your remarks racist. Clearly, introspection is not your strong suit, so I’ll help you out.
Pointing out the immoral violence against and enslavement of people based around race is not some “idiotic argument blissfully unaware of nuance.” Accepting the legalistic justification of the perpetrators of this racially-justified violence isn’t just some really cool property fact. It’s disgusting. It’s not some fascinating instance of moral subjectivity as you seemingly want to believe.
Are you also going to share other really cool and nuanced moral debates like how black people were actually once considered 3/5ths of a person or how the institution of slavery is a positive good to those subjugated under it?
Initially, I just thought that your argument came across as odd and tone deaf. Initially, I just thought that you were just overly eager to respond and weren’t paying attention to who you were responding to. Your responses are somehow so much worse than that.
There is no nice way to say this: it is generally delusional and psychotic that you somehow think I am someone who I am not. Quite honestly, if you think that me pointing out that your, at best, distasteful and minimizing argument towards the enslavement and brutality against black Americans is such a stupid argument lacking nuance, you might be a racist. There. I sad it. (For the first time to you, I might add. I’m sure you genuinely don’t care, though, despite straight up imagining that I’ve said things that I haven’t and that I’m someone who I am not.)
You’re like some gross creature writhing on the ground lashing out at anyone who dares get near.
In all seriousness, some constructive criticism: think about what you are communicating when you so strongly tout and advocate for the legalistic justification used by a racist institution to try to justify the enslavement of black Americans. Think about how you come across when you so unwaveringly beat people over the head with points that they haven’t even made.
I think idiots run in pairs, though it is fun you jump straight to sock puppet. The rest sounds like a personal paranoia you're projecting onto me.
You literally implied I was a racist dude. Own up or shut up, at the very least don't cry about it.
"Some" like you.
You had all that time and you still can't point out where I said slavery is right, it the civil war didn't involve slavery. That nuance I was taking about is the fact the federal government didn't want to stop slavery they wanted to keep the union together Lincoln wrote about it at length some of which I've linked here.
Nope that's again you implying I'm a racist.
You clearly don't understand what I'm saying or you do and you're simply trying to play white knight.
No one said that, you're being paranoid. And again you're calling me a racist.
Personal attacks rather then contrary evidence, how unsurprising.
For it to be constructive criticism you need to understand the contention and look at it without bias which is something you're clearly wholely unable to do.
It’s not that you are attempting to explain the perspectives at play in the national tension leading up to the Civil War that I take issue with.
It is your assertion to my emphasis of the inhuman brutality of the racial enslavement of Black Americans. This is an essential reality one must contend with in order to have a honest a nuanced conversation around slavery and the Civil War.
To claim that this is somehow an idiotic thing to bring up while repping so hard for the claim that black Americans are property really is racist.
Yes, I said you’re racist, just as I did in my comment just prior to this. Of course, you don’t care about that, right? Otherwise, you wouldn’t have encouraged me multiple times to call you racist.
Choose to respond to the wrong person with insults and claim that bringing up the brutality of American slavery is idiotic all you want. Don’t be surprised when someone hits you back with mockery and derision. Be more thoughtful in what you’re responding to and who you’re responding to.
There’s really not a lot more I can say on this topic that I haven’t already brought up. I think I have made it abundantly clear what I take issue with and have sufficiently described why people have such a negative response to your arguments.
Could have fooled me.
What assertion is that exactly? Because I've been very specific that slavery was involved and is bad so I'm quite curious as to this mystery "assertion"
When did I claim it was idiotic exactly?
I didn't encourage you, you had already called me a racist at that point. How you're getting that I don't care is beyond me. You should maybe provide the whole quote because the rest of it directly refutes your bullshit.
I didn't do that, you're putting words in my mouth that simply aren't there which I imagine is why you refuse to quote me on any of these wildly insulting claims.
No you've been incredibly vague and straight up made up shit.