The SJW and equality movement

The article I linked is a direct refutation of one of Ms. Swain's proof points. There may be others, and I'm quite certain that's likely. If you're interested, seek them out. But let's not pretend that one historian's diatribe on the topic is somehow the objective, definitive truth.
I've read the Guardian article (and all the comments thereafter). To my mind, It hardly constitutes a direct, still less a comprehensive refutation of what Swain said; rather, it's a statistical analysis of voting patterns for the civil rights act. It's done in such a way as to make the Democrats seem less culpable in racism: the real division, so it seems to imply, is between views in the erstwhile Union vs. those in the erstwhile Confederacy -- effectively between the North and South (there were many more slaves in the Confederacy than the Union -- see the table here). It seems to seek to shift blame from the generality of Democrats to those in the Southern states, and then imply that they weren't really Democrats.

It says nothing about which party formed the KKK or instigated the Jim Crow laws. What Wikipedia calls the "second KKK" was apparently founded by a Democrat, William Joseph Simmons, a fact I was able to establish by checking up on him, also in Wikipedia. The article I've linked to doesn't mention the political affiliations of the founders of the "first KKK", which

...was founded in Pulaski, Tennessee, on December 24, 1865,[22] by six former officers of the Confederate army:[23] Frank McCord, Richard Reed, John Lester, John Kennedy, J. Calvin Jones and James Crowe.
I've also been able to confirm pretty wide acceptance that people who were Democrats started the KKK. However, does that mean that the Democrat party started the KKK? The answer seems to depend what one's political leanings are. Democrats against the notion may say that the erstwhile Confederates didn't vote Democrat because they were actually Democrats, but mainly because they didn't like Republicans, who, after all, opposed slavery and their way of life (in that, by the way, there'd be a tacit admission that it was the Republicans more than the Democrats who were the party of abolition).

I ask myself: did the Democratic party accept southern Democrats into their fold, or did they reject them and tell them to go their own way to form their own party? Well, there's the Dixiecrats, I suppose, but did they form because they'd been told to bugger off, or did they seek to remain affiiated with the Democrats if only by the use of that suffix "-crats"?

Fact is, whatever the case might be, although slavery was abolished, it didn't change the lives of ordinary blacks much because they were subject to Jim Crow laws until the passing of the civil rights act in 1964. That's almost a century after slavery was (nominally at least) abolished. During that period, how many administrations were Democrat? I checked here, and there were five (excluding Kennedy and Johnson). That's five opportunities, a total of around 40 years, for Democrat administrations to make the lot of black people better. The fact they didn't is puzzling if Democrats have always been anti-racist. Of course, the same could be said of the Republicans: why didn't they fix the problem either?

As you said, the issue is nuanced and I'm not a historian, but what I will say is that it's not looking good for the claim that Democrats have alwayse been anti-racist. Especially when there's seems little doubt that Democrats instigated the Jim Crow laws:

Jim Crow laws were state and local laws that enforced racial segregation in the Southern United States.[1] These laws were enacted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by white Democratic-dominated state legislatures to disenfranchise and remove political and economic gains made by Black people during the Reconstruction period.[2] The Jim Crow laws were enforced until 1965.

I suppose because most black people were in the South...

Jim Crow laws mandated racial segregation in all public facilities in the states of the former Confederate States of America and in some others, beginning in the 1870s. Jim Crow laws were upheld in 1896 in the case of Plessy vs. Ferguson, in which the U.S. Supreme Court laid out its "separate but equal" legal doctrine for facilities for African Americans. Moreover, public education had essentially been segregated since its establishment in most of the South after the Civil War in 1861–65.

It keeps coming back to the North-South thing. Unless the generality of Democrats are willing to completely disavow Democrats in the South (which might include some who were genuinely anti-racist), they can't pretend that they haven't had a long involvement in racism, if not being its prime movers.

There comes a point when if a thing walks, swims and quacks like a duck, it would be perverse to call it something else. One can't forever hide behind a smokescreen of "statistically significant" results and wash one's hands of the weight of evidence.
 
Last edited:
I've read the Guardian article (and all the comments thereafter). To my mind, It hardly constitutes a direct, still less a comprehensive refutation of what Swain said; rather, it's a statistical analysis of voting patterns for the civil rights act. It's done in such a way as to make the Democrats seem less culpable in racism: the real division, so it seems to imply, is between views in the erstwhile Union vs. those in the erstwhile Confederacy -- effectively between the North and South (there were many more slaves in the Confederacy than the Union -- see the table here). It seems to seek to shift blame from the generality of Democrats to those in the Southern states, and then imply that they weren't really Democrats.

It says nothing about which party formed the KKK or instigated the Jim Crow laws. What Wikipedia calls the "second KKK" was apparently founded by a Democrat, William Joseph Simmons, a fact I was able to establish by checking up on him, also in Wikipedia. The article I've linked to doesn't mention the political affiliations of the founders of the "first KKK", which

...was founded in Pulaski, Tennessee, on December 24, 1865,[22] by six former officers of the Confederate army:[23] Frank McCord, Richard Reed, John Lester, John Kennedy, J. Calvin Jones and James Crowe.
I've also been able to confirm pretty wide acceptance that people who were Democrats started the KKK. However, does that mean that the Democrat party started the KKK? The answer seems to depend what one's political leanings are. Democrats against the notion may say that the erstwhile Confederates didn't vote Democrat because they were actually Democrats, but mainly because they didn't like Republicans, who, after all, opposed slavery and their way of life (in that, by the way, there'd be a tacit admission that it was the Republicans more than the Democrats who were the party of abolition).

I ask myself: did the Democratic party accept southern Democrats into their fold, or did they reject them and tell them to go their own way to form their own party? Well, there's the Dixiecrats, I suppose, but did they form because they'd been told to bugger off, or did they seek to remain affiiated with the Democrats if only by the use of that suffix "-crats"?

Fact is, whatever the case might be, although slavery was abolished, it didn't change the lives of ordinary blacks much because they were subject to Jim Crow laws until the passing of the civil rights act in 1964. That's almost a century after slavery was (nominally at least) abolished. During that period, how many administrations were Democrat? I checked here, and there were five (excluding Kennedy and Johnson). That's five opportunities, a total of around 40 years, for Democrat administrations to make the lot of black people better. The fact they didn't is puzzling if Democrats have always been anti-racist. Of course, the same could be said of the Republicans: why didn't they fix the problem either?

As you said, the issue is nuanced and I'm not a historian, but what I will say is that it's not looking good for the claim that Democrats have alwayse been anti-racist. Especially when there's seems little doubt that Democrats instigated the Jim Crow laws:

Jim Crow laws were state and local laws that enforced racial segregation in the Southern United States.[1] These laws were enacted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by white Democratic-dominated state legislatures to disenfranchise and remove political and economic gains made by Black people during the Reconstruction period.[2] The Jim Crow laws were enforced until 1965.

I suppose because most black people were in the South...

Jim Crow laws mandated racial segregation in all public facilities in the states of the former Confederate States of America and in some others, beginning in the 1870s. Jim Crow laws were upheld in 1896 in the case of Plessy vs. Ferguson, in which the U.S. Supreme Court laid out its "separate but equal" legal doctrine for facilities for African Americans. Moreover, public education had essentially been segregated since its establishment in most of the South after the Civil War in 1861–65.

It keeps coming back to the North-South thing. Unless the generality of Democrats are willing to completely disavow Democrats in the South (which might include some who were genuinely anti-racist), they can't pretend that they haven't had a long involvement in racism, if not being its prime movers.

There comes a point when if a thing walks, swims and quacks like a duck, it would be perverse to call it something else. One can't forever hide behind a smokescreen of "statistically significant" results and wash one's hands of the weight of evidence.
Yes. It may well be that their institutional guilt is pushing Dems further from those historical positions than their opponents. Hence the KKK’s current endorsement for Trump.
 
Yes. It may well be that their institutional guilt is pushing Dems further from those historical positions than their opponents. Hence the KKK’s current endorsement for Trump.
Ah, you inveterate sceptic (in many matters other than this it seems), I see you couldn't resist reinforcing your dig at Trump. There's a difference between members of the KKK voting for Trump and Trump encouraging them to vote for him because secretly, he's a racist. I'll give that kind of postmodernist, mind-reading twaddle the contempt it deserves.

But aside from that, I'm wondering how the KKK is faring these days. They're a big and influential organisation, I suppose? Independently of the fevered imaginations of an assorted bunch of SJWs and deranged leftists with TDS? There's a KKK member under every bed just like there's a Russian operative under Trump's? Oh, I forgot: there isn't an operative under his bed and never was. That was just more twaddle from the left, too.
 
Yes. It may well be that their institutional guilt is pushing Dems further from those historical positions than their opponents. Hence the KKK’s current endorsement for Trump.
Surely if A endorses B, and A is a bad person/organisation, that doesn't prove that B is bad too unless B acknowledges that support.

If you happened to know a child molester who was jailed for his crimes, would be responsible if he endorsed you - say because you were great buddies at school

This seems to be an example of an incredibly sloppy mode of thought which has infected politics.

I would have thought that if the Dems feel institutional guilt, the first step would be to admit that guilt and beg the blacks for forgiveness, not beg them for votes.

David
 
I've read the Guardian article (and all the comments thereafter). To my mind, It hardly constitutes a direct, still less a comprehensive refutation of what Swain said; rather, it's a statistical analysis of voting patterns for the civil rights act. It's done in such a way as to make the Democrats seem less culpable in racism: the real division, so it seems to imply, is between views in the erstwhile Union vs. those in the erstwhile Confederacy -- effectively between the North and South (there were many more slaves in the Confederacy than the Union -- see the table here). It seems to seek to shift blame from the generality of Democrats to those in the Southern states, and then imply that they weren't really Democrats.

It says nothing about which party formed the KKK or instigated the Jim Crow laws. What Wikipedia calls the "second KKK" was apparently founded by a Democrat, William Joseph Simmons, a fact I was able to establish by checking up on him, also in Wikipedia. The article I've linked to doesn't mention the political affiliations of the founders of the "first KKK", which

...was founded in Pulaski, Tennessee, on December 24, 1865,[22] by six former officers of the Confederate army:[23] Frank McCord, Richard Reed, John Lester, John Kennedy, J. Calvin Jones and James Crowe.
I've also been able to confirm pretty wide acceptance that people who were Democrats started the KKK. However, does that mean that the Democrat party started the KKK? The answer seems to depend what one's political leanings are. Democrats against the notion may say that the erstwhile Confederates didn't vote Democrat because they were actually Democrats, but mainly because they didn't like Republicans, who, after all, opposed slavery and their way of life (in that, by the way, there'd be a tacit admission that it was the Republicans more than the Democrats who were the party of abolition).

I ask myself: did the Democratic party accept southern Democrats into their fold, or did they reject them and tell them to go their own way to form their own party? Well, there's the Dixiecrats, I suppose, but did they form because they'd been told to bugger off, or did they seek to remain affiiated with the Democrats if only by the use of that suffix "-crats"?

Fact is, whatever the case might be, although slavery was abolished, it didn't change the lives of ordinary blacks much because they were subject to Jim Crow laws until the passing of the civil rights act in 1964. That's almost a century after slavery was (nominally at least) abolished. During that period, how many administrations were Democrat? I checked here, and there were five (excluding Kennedy and Johnson). That's five opportunities, a total of around 40 years, for Democrat administrations to make the lot of black people better. The fact they didn't is puzzling if Democrats have always been anti-racist. Of course, the same could be said of the Republicans: why didn't they fix the problem either?

As you said, the issue is nuanced and I'm not a historian, but what I will say is that it's not looking good for the claim that Democrats have alwayse been anti-racist. Especially when there's seems little doubt that Democrats instigated the Jim Crow laws:

Jim Crow laws were state and local laws that enforced racial segregation in the Southern United States.[1] These laws were enacted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by white Democratic-dominated state legislatures to disenfranchise and remove political and economic gains made by Black people during the Reconstruction period.[2] The Jim Crow laws were enforced until 1965.

I suppose because most black people were in the South...

Jim Crow laws mandated racial segregation in all public facilities in the states of the former Confederate States of America and in some others, beginning in the 1870s. Jim Crow laws were upheld in 1896 in the case of Plessy vs. Ferguson, in which the U.S. Supreme Court laid out its "separate but equal" legal doctrine for facilities for African Americans. Moreover, public education had essentially been segregated since its establishment in most of the South after the Civil War in 1861–65.

It keeps coming back to the North-South thing. Unless the generality of Democrats are willing to completely disavow Democrats in the South (which might include some who were genuinely anti-racist), they can't pretend that they haven't had a long involvement in racism, if not being its prime movers.

There comes a point when if a thing walks, swims and quacks like a duck, it would be perverse to call it something else. One can't forever hide behind a smokescreen of "statistically significant" results and wash one's hands of the weight of evidence.
Any thoughts on the last 50 years as opposed to the 100 years prior?

Have you studied the Southern Strategy?

What's your point beyond what seems to be a biased-political agenda you wish to assert?
 
Any thoughts on the last 50 years as opposed to the 100 years prior?

Have you studied the Southern Strategy?

What's your point beyond what seems to be a biased-political agenda you wish to assert?
Wow, that's a pretty lame response to Michael's well considered post. And you wonder why I stick to posting stuff like this?

 
Wow, that's a pretty lame response to Michael's well considered post. And you wonder why I stick to posting stuff like this?
Reading comprehension again K9.

Here were the questions Michael posed in his original post on this topic:

So: I ask myself: how come a political party which most people tend to think of as the pro-black party managed to become so regarded? Was it some kind of conversion the Democrats underwent in the 60's? If so, they were a little late to the game which hitherto the Republicans had been the main champions for. And how come the Republicans are now labelled as the racists, when without them, there'd quite possibly still be slavery or at least active discrimination in America?
There would "quite possibly still be slavery"? Hyperbole anyone? But I disgress.

We've been responding to these questions. His most recent post was basically a regurgitation of his first post: fixated on the period post Civil War to the 1960's. And yet he's asking questions about the modern day perception of the two parties.

Hint: It wasn't my response that was lame.
 
Surely if A endorses B, and A is a bad person/organisation, that doesn't prove that B is bad too unless B acknowledges that support.

If you happened to know a child molester who was jailed for his crimes, would be responsible if he endorsed you - say because you were great buddies at school

This seems to be an example of an incredibly sloppy mode of thought which has infected politics.

I would have thought that if the Dems feel institutional guilt, the first step would be to admit that guilt and beg the blacks for forgiveness, not beg them for votes.

David
What if you accept piles of cash from a rapists and a pedophiles?


https://www.businessinsider.com/harvey-weinstein-political-donations-2017-10?op=1


https://www.businessinsider.com/jeffrey-epstein-politicians-connections-donations-2019-7?op=1

Note that although Epstein donated to both Democrats and Republicans, Bush (who took money from Epstein) does not support Trump for re-election.
 
Reading comprehension again K9.

Here were the questions Michael posed in his original post on this topic:


There would "quite possibly still be slavery"? Hyperbole anyone? But I disgress.

We've been responding to these questions. His most recent post was basically a regurgitation of his first post: fixated on the period post Civil War to the 1960's. And yet he's asking questions about the modern day perception of the two parties.

Hint: It wasn't my response that was lame.
I have a question then. Why is it that Black Americans who support the Republican party find themselves being called things like "Aunt Jemina" "Uncle Tom" and far worse things by members of the democratic party? If the democrats are so kind to POC, why don't they accept those that have other political affiliations?

This man wasn't just called names. He was murdered.

 
I have a question then. Why is it that Black Americans who support the Republican party find themselves being called things like "Aunt Jemina" "Uncle Tom" and far worse things by members of the democratic party? If the democrats are so kind to POC, why don't they accept those that have other political affiliations?

This man wasn't just called names. He was murdered.

I don't know. Why is it that a bad actor is a bad actor regardless of political affiliation?


Why did a lunatic who supported Trump drive his car through a protest killing one and injuring many others? Because he was a bad actor; no different at all from the example you've provided. Does this game of demonizing using individual anecdotal examples accomplish anything? Seems a pretty shallow venture to me.
 
I don't know. Why is it that a bad actor is a bad actor regardless of political affiliation?


Why did a lunatic who supported Trump drive his car through a protest killing one and injuring many others? Because he was a bad actor; no different at all from the example you've provided. Does this game of demonizing using individual anecdotal examples accomplish anything? Seems a pretty shallow venture to me.
Was anyone in the video you showed murdered for their political views? That doesn't really compare then, does it.

As for what a driver may be thinking when being mobbed by rioters, given the fact that drivers have been shot at, and dragged out of their vehicles and beaten... I can see a why the driver was afraid to stop.

Bernell Trammell was sitting on a lawn chair when he was murdered in broad daylight. Clearly not a threat to anyone else.
 
Was anyone in the video you showed murdered for their political views? That doesn't really compare then, does it.

As for what a driver may be thinking when being mobbed by rioters, given the fact that drivers have been shot at, and dragged out of their vehicles and beaten... I can see a why the driver was afraid to stop.

Bernell Trammell was sitting on a lawn chair when he was murdered in broad daylight. Clearly not a threat to anyone else.
You're lost K9. Anyone who attempts to selectively justify one homicide while martyring another to protect an ideological view is without ethics, without morals. You really should do some self reflection; its pretty shocking.
 
Surely if A endorses B, and A is a bad person/organisation, that doesn't prove that B is bad too unless B acknowledges that support.
There's a difference between members of the KKK voting for Trump and Trump encouraging them to vote for him because secretly, he's a racist. I'll give that kind of postmodernist, mind-reading twaddle the contempt it deserves.

So any idea at all why the KKK would support a president who tells black Americans to go back where they came from?

https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-history
 
You're lost K9. Anyone who attempts to selectively justify one homicide while martyring another to protect an ideological view is without ethics, without morals. You really should do some self reflection; its pretty shocking.
Self-defense is legal. Homicide is not.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/seattle-protest-driving-crowd-self-defense

A man who drove his car into a crowd of protesters before shooting one of them in Seattle is claiming that he acted out of fear for his life.
https://patriotsforthefuture.com/peaceful-protest-theres-nothing-peaceful-about-shooting-drivers/

If you happen to drive through an area where there is a protest, and they are happening everywhere, you’re in danger. The actual protests that are still peaceful are few and far between. Most include people who are stupid, armed, and will shoot at anyone without asking questions.


Drivers need to act accordingly, even if that means driving right on down the road, whether there are people in the road or not. What’s the alternative? You could stop to wait for them to get out of the road and risk being shot in the head.
There is a huge difference between someone acting out of fear for their life and someone murdering an elderly man sitting on a lawn chair.
 
Last edited:
Protester doxed by grandma.

https://thepostmillennial.com/antif...identified-by-vest-his-grandma-bought-for-him

An Antifa rioter in Portland who threw an explosive device at the Mark O. Hatfield federal courthouse has been identified in an online review of the vest he was wearing, presumably left by his grandmother.

TPM's Ian Miles Cheong tweeted Tuesday night:


Apparently the guy who threw an explosive at the federal courthouse in Portland has been identified in a review of the vest his grandma bought for him to riot in.​
The militant threw an explosive device at the Mark O. Hatfield federal courthouse in Portland Monday night, which has been the site of nightly rioting for two months.

The review of the protest vest was written on Hibbett, the site that sells the vest. It's called the "Hudson Men's Icons Reflective Vest."

"I got this for my grandson who's a protestor downtown, he uses it every night and says it's done the job," Antifa grandma wrote under the product listing.
Another review asked "Does this vest come with immunity from a federal indictment?" And another noted that the vest is "good for protesting, bad for anonymity."
 
Charlottesville K9, Charlottesville.
There are so many cases of people being shot by protesters while driving, and you can't be bothered to post actual links? If you want to have an actual discussion, then post actual evidence.

BTW, Is your real name Karen?

 
Are you talking about this case from way back in 2017?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlottesville_car_attack

I don't see what that case has to do with this discussion at all. The driver was convicted and is in jail, as he should be. He was also mentally ill.

According to Fields' high school history teacher, Derek Weimer, Fields was prescribed an antipsychotic as anger management medication after he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia.[38][9] Fields told a judge that he was receiving treatment for bipolar disorder, anxiety, depression and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).[42]
 
Are you talking about this case from way back in 2017?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlottesville_car_attack

I don't see what that case has to do with this discussion at all. The driver was convicted and is in jail, as he should be. He was also mentally ill.
Its an exact corollary.

Bad actor murders an innocent over ideologically different worldviews. In this case it was a Trump-supporting maniac. A maniac who was legally determined to be mentally fit to stand trial and pay for his crimes.

Hopefully the same justice finds the murderer in the case you cited.

Your point again?
 
Top