Do you think there was any sort of benevolent conversation they could have had where that black man wouldn’t have got upset if the other dude used the n-word?Quote:
Originally Posted by joeyc77
Printable View
Do you think there was any sort of benevolent conversation they could have had where that black man wouldn’t have got upset if the other dude used the n-word?Quote:
Originally Posted by joeyc77
You're confusing two monuments to Forrest.Quote:
Originally Posted by joeyc77
The one that was taken down was along the side of the highway in Tennesse, and it was taken down after the property owner died.
The one that is still there is in a cemetery in Selma, Alabama. It was installed in 2000.
I think we can all agree lyndon Johnson was a racist. He made this pretty evident. He stated his intentions behind the civil rights act. While his intentions may not have been explicitly racist, they certainly weren't out of some need to do good for the black man and he was definitely racist in his statement. However, i still consider the civil rights act to be positive, don't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by valade16
Sure, but again that isn’t applicable because for the third time the men who wrote the Mississippi law said they were doing it specifically to discriminate against black people.Quote:
Originally Posted by joeyc77
You kept saying all this stuff about how you support civil rights and are against racism and all these empty platitudes and it’s been like pulling teeth to get you to admit a Jim Crow law made by racists who said their intent was to be racist is bad.
I did a 2 minute google search to find this monument is on private property as well. While i don't support Forrest, i do support private ownership rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by natepro
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ericans-voting
The meeting’s President said “We came here to exclude the Negro. Nothing short of this will answer”
This sentence from the article sums up the fallacy of Joey’s belief system extremely well:
They faced a significant roadblock to their racist goal. The new 15th Amendment to the US Constitution explicitly prohibited states from preventing people from voting based on their race. And so the delegates came up with a new plan that would effectively prevent black people from voting without explicitly saying that was their intent.
Even back then they knew how triflingly easy it was to get around Joey’s “it must say it’s racist in the law otherwise it isn’t” test.
I said in my original post on this that the law should be removed if it can proven the intentions behind the law as you stated. I said a law being erected during jim crow by racists doesn't make the law racist on that basis alone. But i also conceded it doesn't look good for the law. The Johnson example is applicable because he was racist and it was during jim crow kinda....I'm sure there were 100s of laws erected by racists during the jim Crow era. Not all of them are racist was my point. And again, how does a law in Mississippi affect people in California? I can understand black people in Mississippi being upset by this law but when we discuss racism, we discuss it being wide-spread across the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by valade16
Forrest is one of the most fascinating characters to come out of the War Between the States. Possibly as interesting as Stonewall Jackson. Johny Hyeth wrote an interesting biography of him if you're interested in him. He has probably the worst mainstream reputation of any figure during the war, but as usual there's a lot more to the story than that. In fact, he has such a poor reputation that I have no doubt one of the wokerati will stamp their little feet at me mentioning that one could be interested in him.Quote:
Originally Posted by joeyc77
Ok, but if you accept the notion that racists during Jim Crow made laws that were racist despite not explicitly saying they were, then your test is going to let many racist laws stand. That’s exactly why they didn’t explicitly State their laws were racist…Quote:
Originally Posted by joeyc77
That you’re even defending Jim Crow is pretty F’ing insane to be honest.
As for how it affects those in California, this specific level doesn’t, but this level is an example, one of many around the country of racist laws just like it. We need to get rid of all the vestiges of this racism.
You consistently do this....believe you state or present something about my belief system while totally misrepresenting my belief system. If only your lies were true...Quote:
Originally Posted by valade16
If only, then we wouldn’t have to explain how Jim Crow laws were racist to people like you…Quote:
Originally Posted by joeyc77
You’re over here going “sure they were Jim Crow laws made by known racists, but how do we know the law is racist?”
I think at that point, disparate impact coupled with the rest is enough to satisfy any doubts, wouldn’t you?
That's just the way he is. You'll find lots of redditers are like that. I blame it on watching too much television - they're used to these little zingers that have a gotcha moment like in sitcoms, and so they manufacture strawmen to have their little limelight moment just like Sheldon!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by joeyc77
Best policy is just to mock them and move on.
We are all hoping you will do this part.Quote:
Originally Posted by flea
Doing it again... where or when did i defend jim crow? You stated there is proof that their intentions were racist. I'm taking you on your word. Obviously or hopefully this doesn't apply to every law enacted during that era. However, I'm totally in favor of undoing any laws with racist intent. With that in mind though, what do we do about the civil rights act and LBJ. Should it at least be taught in school of his intentions as a Democrat president?Quote:
Originally Posted by valade16