Donald J. Trump: President of the USA Part III Covfefe

[buka001]

Yes

They indicate it seems to be pretty standard for the arrest of a suspect for mounted police.

It also makes practical sense as you don't want to get off the horse and lead it as then it can get spooked (because horses are retarded animals) and run off.

Would you have preferred Red Dead Redemption style where they would hogtie a suspect and throw them over the back of the horse?

Fair enough then. A really bad example I used then.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Jesus you are being dishonest to the point of blind absolution.

Lol. I don't think you mean to use the word "absolution" like that.

The article is about the historical prevalence of white supremacy in america. It talks about events in the past and tracks it through to contemporary issues.

In 1920'ish a civil rights activist penned an opinion relating to a contemporary issue of the time where black soldiers who had returned from war, were still treated as inferior people. This was used to illustrate a critical point in the rise of the civil rights movement where black people became less silent and more vocal of the prejudices they face because they questioned the validity of the prejudices they faced, because simply why could they fight and die for America in a foreign land as equals, but were not allowed to live in America as equals.

Okay, so before the civil rights movement, the claim that there was an institutional bias against one particular group of people on the basis of an arbitrary immutable characteristic (skin colour) could be relatively easily verified by virtue of the explicit policies of said institutions, correct?

Why would that still be the case after laws were passed that expressly forbid this sort of conduct?

If I had told you the story of how the invention of the first stone tool led to the development of a plasma cutter and in thay story I mention that a pivotal point in the development of the plasma cutter was the use of mercury in the metallurgical process. You would now be telling me that since mercury is dangerous how can I be referring to this toxic chemical it does not make plasma cutting any different.

Oh, I see, so the problem that Du Bois spoke about never went away. We need the plasma cutter to cut stuff that needs to still be cut, right? Well, I'm asking you, what exactly is the rock today that needs to be cut?

You are distracting from that specific context.

No, I am pointing out a problem with the example you present.

You are asking me to defend the authors alleged Cultural Marxism. Yet you have failed to show in the context of that quote what was Marxist about it and what was inherently wrong with his view about returning black soldiers? So I cannot defend something you haven't offered up for me to defend. The article traces a subject through history and mentions one of the steps through that path.

The Marxism comes in with the assumption that the black people are being systemically oppressed by white supremacy like the sort Trump supposedly espouses. There is no way to make that cognitive leap unless you buy into the Marxist structural racism collective guilt BS.

Do you hear me? NO way. I am not surprised you have failed to actually demonstrate a way every time I have challenged you to do so, it's just a pity that you don't take the significance to bloody heart.

You have chosen not to look at that step, but take it out and place it in a context that neither the originator, the New Yorker author or myself have placed it and want me to defend that intellectually dishonest position.

There's nothing dishonest about it because I'm demanding that you validate the claims of racism in the first place, and you're getting upset instead of bringing the evidence, showing us crap that came from BEFORE THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT.

And in parallel to that you lead a character assassination of the author based on a separate matter to the specific context of the quote.

TIL that illustrating the worldview that informed someone's particular belief constitutes "character assassination".

So provide me an answer to these three questions -

Tell me what is wrong with voicing the concern that when black soldiers returned from WW1 and WW2 for that matter, they were still subjected to prejudice and segregation?

Within that statement, why is it Marxist?

Why should we ignore that statement?

There is something wrong with invoking an ancient concern when the conditions that brought about that concern has already been legally remedied, largely to everybody's satisfaction except for a couple of butthurt progressives who can't come up with a better way of telling everybody how to behave. What's next, are you going to demand reparations for slavery?

 

[Gingerbeardman]

When black soldiers returned they could not. The law forbade them too.

Wait, so there was this thing called a law that was discriminating against a class of people?

 

[cerebus]

That there is no clear definition of it.

Please, retracing what you have said above, explain what qualifies as incitement to violence.

Incitement - the action of provoking unlawful behaviour or urging someone to behave unlawfully.

Urging - telling followers to beat up a protester.
Provoking - telling the country as President that they are under invasion by Mexican immigrants. Claiming that a Muslim congresswoman is sympathetic to 9/11 terrorists and smiling while they chant about sending her home.

 

[rietrot]

In 1919 and 1945, when white soldiers returned they could get any job they wanted, suitable to their experience etc. They could live anywhere they could afford. They could sit on any bench, sit on any seat in any bus they wanted to.

When black soldiers returned they could not. The law forbade them too.

Ja current laws at the time were racist, not particularly to soldiers, but to all black people. It was bad. We all know and accept this.

 

[Gnarls]

Urging - telling followers to beat up a protester.
Provoking - telling the country as President that they are under invasion by Mexican immigrants. Claiming that a Muslim congresswoman is sympathetic to 9/11 terrorists and smiling while they chant about sending her home.

You're missing the word illegal....again.

 

[rietrot]

Incitement - the action of provoking unlawful behaviour or urging someone to behave unlawfully.

Urging - telling followers to beat up a protester.
Provoking - telling the country as President that they are under invasion by Mexican immigrants. Claiming that a Muslim congresswoman is sympathetic to 9/11 terrorists and smiling while they chant about sending her home.

Telling people the police are racist is incitement against the police. Your side are just causing more suicide by cop situations.

 

[Gnarls]

Telling people the police are racist is incitement against to police. Your side are just causing more suicide by cop situations.

#notwrongiftheydoit

 

[cerebus]

You're missing the word illegal....again.

Violence is illegal

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Incitement - the action of provoking unlawful behaviour or urging someone to behave unlawfully.

Urging - telling followers to beat up a protester.
Provoking - telling the country as President that they are under invasion by Mexican immigrants. Claiming that a Muslim congresswoman is sympathetic to 9/11 terrorists and smiling while they chant about sending her home.

So wait, calling something an invasion is an incitement to violence, yet defending against an invasion is illegal?

 

[cerebus]

So wait, calling something an invasion is an incitement to violence, yet defending against an invasion is illegal?

Shooting Mexicans because you believe you're being invaded is illegal, yes. Are you even capable of honesty?

 

[Gnarls]

Violence is illegal

And you have causative proof right?

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Shooting Mexicans because you believe you're being invaded is illegal, yes. Are you even capable of honesty?

You haven't explained why Trump naming something an invasion would constitute a call to people to break the law. Presumably you have things like the US army to defend the country against invasions.

And again, if Mexican immigration is truly an invasion on your country as Trump has repeatedly claimed, it is quite justified to take up arms to defend your homeland.

 

[Gnarls]

Violence is illegal

Not all violence.

 

[buka001]

Ja current laws at the time were racist, not particularly to soldiers, but to all black people. It was bad. We all know and accept this.

Hallelujah!

Finally someone gets it! Yes it was bad and that is what Du Bois said. That is the context. He commented on an event that was an instrumental first step to the Civil Rights movement. That was the point that the New Yorker columnist made.

He did not make a point that what Du Bois said can also be used to be critical of Trump now. He was talking about a point in history and Du Bois view of it.

Xarog has obfusticated the whole day avoiding this simple point. Strawmans it to death. Refuses to comment on that context and keeps sidetracking it to make it an argument about Cultural Marxism.

Xarog please read Rietrots response to understand it.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Hallelujah!

Finally someone gets it! Yes it was bad and that is what Du Bois said. That is the context. He commented on an event that was an instrumental first step to the Civil Rights movement. That was the point that the New Yorker columnist made.

Nobody denied that things before the civil rights act was bad, it's just that it is irrelevant. You're fighting figments of your imagination.

He did not make a point that what Du Bois said can also be used to be critical of Trump now. He was talking about a point in history and Du Bois view of it.

No, then what was his justification for saying that the connections can be made, Buka?

Xarog has obfusticated the whole day avoiding this simple point. Strawmans it to death. Refuses to comment on that context and keeps sidetracking it to make it an argument about Cultural Marxism.

Xarog please read Rietrots response to understand it.

https://mybroadband.co.za/forum/thr...he-usa-part-iii-covfefe.1003908/post-23920031
https://mybroadband.co.za/forum/thr...he-usa-part-iii-covfefe.1003908/post-23919055

You're rather spectacularly missing rietrot's point.

 

[rietrot]

Hallelujah!

Finally someone gets it! Yes it was bad and that is what Du Bois said. That is the context. He commented on an event that was an instrumental first step to the Civil Rights movement. That was the point that the New Yorker columnist made.

He did not make a point that what Du Bois said can also be used to be critical of Trump now. He was talking about a point in history and Du Bois view of it.

Xarog has obfusticated the whole day avoiding this simple point. Strawmans it to death. Refuses to comment on that context and keeps sidetracking it to make it an argument about Cultural Marxism.

Xarog please read Rietrots response to understand it.

Ja and what you are trying to do is view the present time were Trump made a comment about literal infestations of rodents and invasion of illegals through the context of 2000 years of oppression and slavery, like cultural marxism thaugh you. Which has fokol to do with nothing. Just so that you can pretend that Trump is racist and inciting violence.

I have news for you. All this mental gymnastics was a waste of time. You are going to pretend Trump is racist and inciting violence anyway. There was no need to go through all of this.

 

[buka001]

Nobody denied that things before the civil rights act was bad, it's just that it is irrelevant. You're fighting figments of your imagination.


No, then what was his justification for saying that the connections can be made, Buka?



Nobody denies that things were bad before the civil rights act was implemented, dumbass. That's a goalpost that you invented for yourself, of no significance to anyone but yourself.

https://mybroadband.co.za/forum/thr...he-usa-part-iii-covfefe.1003908/post-23920031
https://mybroadband.co.za/forum/thr...he-usa-part-iii-covfefe.1003908/post-23919055

You're rather spectacularly missing rietrot's point.

That is exactly what Du Bois said. It was bad back then.

So at the beginning of your circus you took out a character assasination of him because he is a Marxist.

I then noted that, that is the typical example of using Cultural Marxism as a slur to cut out dissenting views. I illustrated this by asking you to show me exactly what was wrong with Du Bois opinion back then, based on the way black soldiers was treated after the war. In a round about way you and Rietrot have now acknowledged that there was nothing wrong with what he said back then.


You realised you could not answer this question because it would prove my point that using Cultural Marxism to exclude certain people from the discourse also results in excluding legitimate views from the discourse as well. This is what I pointed out.

My point, despite how hard you tried was never made to connect the Du Bois quote to Trump or anything happening now.

My point was always based on that context, and I reiterated this several times, using the word context every single time I posted, please show me what was wrong with Du Bois quote back then in the context of it then, so I could show you that painting someone as a Cultural Marxist does also exclude valid points.

So please quote me precisely on where I drew a direct connection between the Du Bois quote or its specific context of that time to Trump or anything today. This was in your head. You assumed from my first post that I was connecting Du Bois to Trump and contemporary politics and ignored my actual point.

 

[buka001]

Ja and what you are trying to do is view the present time were Trump made a comment about literal infestations of rodents and invasion of illegals through the context of 2000 years of oppression and slavery, like cultural marxism thaugh you. Which has fokol to do with nothing. Just so that you can pretend that Trump is racist and inciting violence.

I have news for you. All this mental gymnastics was a waste of time. You are going to pretend Trump is racist and inciting violence anyway. There was no need to go through all of this.

Quote me where I said that?

 

[rietrot]

That is exactly what Du Bois said. It was bad back then.

So at the beginning of your circus you took out a character assasination of him because he is a Marxist.

I then noted that, that is the typical example of using Cultural Marxism as a slur to cut out dissenting views. I illustrated this by asking you to show me exactly what was wrong with Du Bois opinion back then, based on the way black soldiers was treated after the war. In a round about way you and Rietrot have now acknowledged that there was nothing wrong with what he said back then.


You realised you could not answer this question because it would prove my point that using Cultural Marxism to exclude certain people from the discourse also results in excluding legitimate views from the discourse as well. This is what I pointed out.

My point, despite how hard you tried was never made to connect the Du Bois quote to Trump or anything happening now.

My point was always based on that context, and I reiterated this several times, using the word context every single time I posted, please show me what was wrong with Du Bois quote back then in the context of it then, so I could show you that painting someone as a Cultural Marxist does also exclude valid points.

So please quote me precisely on where I drew a direct connection between the Du Bois quote or its specific context of that time to Trump or anything today. This was in your head. You assumed from my first post that I was connecting Du Bois to Trump and contemporary politics and ignored my actual point.

So all of this just to say the US had racial segregation laws in the past, which isn't a controversial idea, and well known fact. Okay then.

I suggest next time try and be a little more direct.