Would whites re-institute slavery today if they could?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Would whites re-institute slavery today if they could?

«‹›2 »

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011; Can't post for 3 days!

computer parts posted:

It's pretty clear that racism of sorts existed pre-Enlightenment. The story of the Good Samaritan is literally "this guy is one of the good ones" to a racist audience.

E-Tank posted:

I always thought it was 'Don't let your ego get too inflated or else they'll be nicer than you are and you'll end up looking bad in front of God'.

To be fair, Jesus' audience did call him out on that racist story.

# ¿ Jun 15, 2014 00:39

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 05:02

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011; Can't post for 3 days!

Having some perspective on the world isn't self-hatred. Goddamn, if you want to talk about sanctimonious bullshit, just check out wateroverfire's post, he can't nail himself to the cross of internet persecution fast enough.

# ¿ Jun 15, 2014 15:13

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011; Can't post for 3 days!

wateroverfire posted:

It's the part where that perspective is extremely skewed and promotes self hatred.

GBS has a much better read on the world than D&D.

I'm going to throw in with the thread consensus. Thank whatever gods you believe in that you are a straight white man, because if a few people commenting on the internet send you into a tizzy about white persecution, you wouldn't be able to handle being a minority in the Real World, where a big chunk of society demonizes you openly, legislation to take away your rights is commonly passed, and prejudice actually has a material effect on your quality of life.

# ¿ Jun 15, 2014 16:31

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011; Can't post for 3 days!

Ogmius815 posted:

Except most whites are actually not appalled by the thought of making blacks subservient at all, sadly. Racism is still the most important constituent fact of this country.

This is true. My apartment is a mess, and while I'm not saying I'd cast a vote for slavery if I got a slave out of it to pick things up around here, I am saying that I would do exactly that.

Of course, this is D&D so cue some SJW college student jumping all over me about how I'm racist for wanting a clean apartment.

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Jun 16, 2014

# ¿ Jun 16, 2014 02:12

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011; Can't post for 3 days!

Arkane posted:

Republicans HATED Clinton with a passion. Think of the famous conservative voices: pretty much all of them achieved incredible popularity hating on Clinton. Limbaugh, Hannity, Drudge, Coulter. Fox News started during Clinton's presidency. On and on.

Not sure who you are trying to fool by just posting deluded nonsense.

You could mayyyyyyybe convince me that the incessant clamoring to impeach Obama no matter what he does isn't racist...like, if I were really high, I might nod along and go "yeah they did impeach Clinton over a blowjob so sure maybe Republicans are just huge tantrum-throwing babies no matter the color of a Democratic President." I mean, okay.

But you will never, ever convince me that birtherism isn't racist, because that's pure stubborn, resolute refusal to accept him as a Real American based on nothing more than the color of his skin and his scary-sounding name. And considering there are elected, sitting members of Congress who yet refuse to admit Obama is the legitimate President, I'm going to have to say yeah, white people are still pretty racist.

# ¿ Jun 16, 2014 07:28

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011; Can't post for 3 days!

Arkane posted:

I agree to an extent, but I speculatively think a sizable percentage of those would be equally vitriolic about a white candidate of uncertain birth status.

Counterpoint: white people. Specifically CPAC
"As far as I'm concerned, Canada's not really foreign soil" _{cuz it's not friend of the family country!}

Arkane posted:

And what if the shoe were on the other foot? Colin Powell born in Hawaii, for instance, to a non-American father. Would there have been a birther movement for the Democrats? Probably nowhere as big, but it's within reason that it would exist.

Uh, if this were to happen, wouldn't this prove that white racism is an even bigger problem than this thread suggests, as Democrats made no hay at all over white McCain's birth in Panama?

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 07:54 on Jun 16, 2014

# ¿ Jun 16, 2014 07:49

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011; Can't post for 3 days!

Genocide Tendency posted:

Because he is a democrat. If it were Hillary, they would still be saying the same thing. If it were some random white dude, take a wild guess what the republicans would say.

But by all means, keep lying to your self and believing that racism and not retarded "they aren't batting for my political team" is why these 3 happen

Hey why does the South in general (and rednecks in other states) hate Democrats and big government so much, anyway? FDR was the biggest big government guy of all and they lovvvvvved him.

It seems like a Democrat federal government must have done something really heinous, a total betrayal in the eyes of the South to warrant such hatred and fear. Hmmm, it happened in the 60s...maybe it was Johnson's decision to...........send troops to Vietnam, what do you think?

# ¿ Jun 16, 2014 14:08

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011; Can't post for 3 days!

Genocide Tendency posted:

Hey, why don't you learn to read?

I didn't address rednecks. I didn't address the south. I addressed questions around the republican party and congress's issues when it comes to working with Obama.

Yeah, why does the Republican party appeal to those groups so much, anyway, when they used to hate the Republicans with a fiery passion?

It must be that they share a deep-seated ideological belief in small government, low taxes, and a strong national defense; beliefs that just so happened to align in the 1960's for mysterious and unknowable causes.

OneEightHundred posted:

Our last president was a white dude from Texas that was accused of orchestrating 9/11 and the biggest election fraud in history.

Were those accusations of Bush plotting 9/11 made by sitting, popularly elected congressmen; or by nutjobs on the Internet?

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:12 on Jun 16, 2014

# ¿ Jun 16, 2014 15:00

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011; Can't post for 3 days!

Genocide Tendency posted:

What point are you even trying to make?

That the Sixth Party System was created and is maintained largely (almost entirely really) by racism, which you're entirely eliding by dismissing the frothing insane demonization of Obama as partisan politics. In the Sixth Party System, partisan politics is racism. Even Clinton did not have opposition this bad: when he offered to give away Democratic positions for peanuts in grand bargains, Republicans got on board. They railed against Clinton, but if he supported something they wanted, they voted for it. How many times has the Tea Party rejected an almost total surrender from Obama out of steadfast refusal to not let him pass a single bill no matter how great a victory it would be for the right's agenda? The Republicans couldn't even get an offer together to end the shutdown crisis because the furious Tea Party core defied any attempt to negotiate with a black man.

Obama had a grand bargain on the table, but the Republican establishment collapsed when it became clear the Tea Party would prefer to burn the country to the ground rather than legitimize Obama's presidency. Obama got the clean debt ceiling bill he wanted because the Tea Party would rather let the black man win than acknowledge him as an equal at the bargaining table.

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Jun 16, 2014

# ¿ Jun 16, 2014 18:22

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011; Can't post for 3 days!

Genocide Tendency posted:

There is a can of black spray paint out in the garage. We can help you fix your self-hatred for being white.

Why can't white people have a pride movement? I'm not ashamed to be white :qq:

Pro-tip: when arguing that the REAL racists are the ones helping minorities, it is poor strategy to tip your hand by telling someone that if he loves the negro so much, he should go be one.

Edit: Seriously though, all the guy said was that he wanted to do his job without white people crowding out his clients' questions with ignorant poo poo about "Where's the White Jobs Program" (America. The White Jobs Program is called America), and you're calling him a race traitor. What the hell.

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 14:21 on Jun 18, 2014

# ¿ Jun 18, 2014 14:12

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011; Can't post for 3 days!

wateroverfire posted:

I don't think he's American.

Which poster do you mean?

# ¿ Jun 18, 2014 14:33

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011; Can't post for 3 days!

on the left posted:

Pro-tip: people playing the "you are racist" one-upsmanship card on message boards aren't even slightly helping minorities. They are just using minorities as a prop for social positioning and preening.

Whoa whoa that's a heavy word, I never called anyone a racist. Why are you so obsessed with that word? Maybe you're the real one-upper.

Edit: the guy he was calling a race traitor really is helping minorities though. Like, that's his job, did you miss that?

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:10 on Jun 18, 2014

# ¿ Jun 18, 2014 15:05

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011; Can't post for 3 days!

wateroverfire posted:

Nobody called anyone a race traitor.

Ah right. He just said if he hated his own people so much, he should go be black. Which is totally different.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2014 15:30

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011; Can't post for 3 days!

Genocide Tendency posted:

Or I was just being an rear end in a top hat to a pretentious bag of cocks.

Nope. He made a very good point about his own personal experience working to help minorities find employment (minorities being shut out of the job market in white-dominated societies is a huge problem), and he has to deal with white people expecting him to drop what he's doing and explain to him how it's not racist of him to help unemployed black people. And rather than addressing it, you just told him to go be a black woman.

Genocide Tendency posted:

Correct. I didn't call anyone a race traitor. I simply pointed out that someone went off the deep end with their white guilt and peacocking about how unracist of a white person they are and how everyone should be just like them. Also some weird thing about how apparently gender is important in rape and domestic violence. Instead of it simply being rape and domestic violence is bad regardless of the gender of the victim. I'm sure that wasn't the point they wanted to make but it read that way.

If men want to start a men's rape crisis center, feminists will not stop them. I promise. This is the problem: women cannot even get together and address women's issues without men coming in with "Well what about mennnnnn. Men have issues too, why do you think it's okay to do something that doesn't revolve around men?" Male victimization is real, but the people demanding that women divert some of their tiny resources to men are not proposing solutions that help men. Don't expect women to solve their own problems and men's too.

Genocide Tendency posted:

I don't argue racism or gender discrimination. They exist. Thats simple fact. But telling one race or one gender that they shouldn't voice their views because of reasons... Is well.. loving stupid. And crying racism or gender bias (MRA in this case which someone will do because they are loving retarded) is just as bad as someone posting "Niggers should know their place, in the cotton fields" or "women belong in the kitchen". Reasonable discussion involves all walks of life on a level platform. Each one having an equal voice and using it in a respectful manner.

The argument isn't really "If you are white, you can never say anything." It's that ignorant people don't get to be listened to as if their arguments have equal merit. Since being a straight white man is the "standard" perspective, they have the privilege of assuming theirs is the only one that exists. If someone wants to participate in the debate, the onus is on them to educate themselves about the topic (lots of literature exists, and middle-class white men have the luxury of accessing it whenever they wish). Nobody challenges this when people talking quantum physics tell someone who comes up demanding they explain physics to him from Newton on up before they may continue that he should go read up on the basics rather than ask them to trudge over elementary explanations that are available anywhere. But white men expect that anytime a minority talks about race or gender, they need to acknowledge his privilege and patiently go over the basics inch by inch like they have with dozens of other ignorant white men before him, or else they're "reverse racist".

Here, check out this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBKieGz5QiM
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Not only does this legislator not know why a woman might need an abortion, he never even considered the question. "Needing an abortion" is not something that falls within his experience, so it's not even that he doesn't care about women's perspective, as a man he is not even aware that a non-male perspective exists, but drat it he has Opinions, and those Opinions should be the law. Minorities are always acutely aware of the dominant perspective; it is the default. But the reverse isn't true, and it's totally valid to tell people who have no awareness of minority perspectives to go educate themselves before they open their mouths.

Genocide Tendency posted:

Just like earlier when you, VitalSigns, tried to re-imagine my post about feuding political parties into what ever dumbshit angle you were trying to take to paint it into a race issue.

Hey yeah, I laid out why you can't dismiss partisan politics as "not racist" in a country where one political party consciously bases its platform on racism; and how no white Democrat has sparked the kind of mindless, furious opposition that Obama has; as per your question of what I had been driving at, and you ignored it! What gives?

Genocide Tendency posted:

You are going to ignore every loving thing I have posted here VitalSigns, because well, its right.

How does it feel to be wrong all the time?

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Jun 18, 2014

# ¿ Jun 18, 2014 16:49

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011; Can't post for 3 days!

WorldsStrongestNerd posted:

If we were a truly evil country we could exterminate the blacks ala like the nazis did the jews. we dont have slavery because white america doesnt want slavery. So asking if we would if we could is a nonsencical question.

I just love that you genuinely want a pat on the head and a cookie for not rounding up blacks into concentration camps and committing full-on genocide when black people started ignoring laws against them sitting at whites-only lunch counters.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2014 20:38

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011; Can't post for 3 days!

WorldsStrongestNerd posted:

From a purely logistical standpoint, genocide or maintaining slavery was an option and it still is an option. I dont think that white america deserves points for acting like semi decent humans and choosing not to genocide. Im just pointing out that one of the many resons blacks have rights is because white america decided they were ok with blacks having rights. There is no other way that could have worked since blacks are a smaller and weaker minority of the population.

This has a grain of truth but is mostly wrong. It is true that white people were not in favor of genocide by a comfortable majority. However, most white people were happy with keeping black people legally second-class citizens as long as they didn't face mass resistance and it could be maintained with the amount of force that the legal system, police, and vigilantes could apply.

The organized mass resistance of the Civil Rights Movement took away the option of having both racialist laws and also good order. It was only when black people began to disobey the law en masse, thereby presenting whites with the stark choice of relenting on civil rights or exterminating of millions of people did enough whites finally stop supporting Jim Crow.

White people did not give black people civil rights. They did not "get tired" of Jim Crow. It was necessary for black people to stand up and say "No, you give us our rights or you will have to commit thousands and thousands of Sharpesvilles all over the country to preserve White Supremacy". This was not a minor contribution: this was the entire thing, minus the minor contribution whites made by saying "Okay I guess White Supremacy isn't worth perpetrating mass murder"

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Jun 18, 2014

# ¿ Jun 18, 2014 21:36

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011; Can't post for 3 days!

WorldsStrongestNerd posted:

If the majority of whites wernt for equal rights the we would not have equal rights. Its not white vs black itsmost whites and blacks vs the racists.

The majority of whites weren't "for" equal rights. If they were, no black action would have been necessary. They were just against genocide more, and when they were forced to choose they gave up their attachment to legalized White Supremacy in favor of not drowning the country in blood.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2014 21:40

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011; Can't post for 3 days!

WorldsStrongestNerd posted:

Like most of you are so appalled at the idea of black america not having a lot of agency and the neccessity of getting support from a large part of white america to achive thier goals, but how could it have been any other way? If blacks had any power in the society they would not of been slaves or second class citizens to begin with. Of course they had to work and convince part of white society to help.

Convincing racist white people not to be so racist is a pretty big achievement of black activists in and of itself. Way to ignore every single refutation of what you're saying though. Because once again, if a majority of whites supported the CRA, black activism would have been unnecessary. Whites preferred the CRA to gunning down blacks in the street, but it's pretty drat hard to argue that if they had the option of preserving Jim Crow without mass killings that white Americans wouldn't have done it.

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Jun 18, 2014

# ¿ Jun 18, 2014 21:50

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011; Can't post for 3 days!

WorldsStrongestNerd posted:

Again i dont think whites deserbe any credit. I just think its odd to see a black person or white liberal carry on about how we want to reenslave the blacks. If our society wanted slavery back we would already have it.

Uh ok but--

WorldsStrongestNerd posted:

Ha. What do you mean "If they could"? Although blacks did play a minor part in securing thier rights, we got rid of slavery and segregation because thats what white america wanted.

So white people don't deserve credit, but black people played only a minor part in white people getting rid of segregation. So who gets the major credit then, pixies?

# ¿ Jun 18, 2014 21:55

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011; Can't post for 3 days!

A Buttery Pastry posted:

This does not have a single thing to do with being grateful, this has to do with looking at the decisions white America has made before, which might be relevant to the question "Would they attempt to re-enslave black people?" or "How far is white America willing to go?"

Well that's the "if they could" part, isn't it? If white people could take away the franchise from blacks without having to gun them down, would they? Maybe, I mean, state after state is passing laws to get away with as much disenfranchisement as they can.

As for re-establishing slavery: is it really moral considerations that are preventing its return or do economic constraints factor into it? I mean, from a moral standpoint, every single Christian should support food stamps, but keeping taxes low is a benefit to large moneyed interests which have spent a lot of money convincing the majority of white people that starving the poor is not only morally permissible, but noble!

You can bet your rear end that if slavery were economically profitable, the Heritage Foundation would be publishing paper after paper singing the praises of that peculiar institution in preventing crime and keeping the black family together. And given that a sizeable number of conservatives believe that now (Hi Cliven Bundy, oh hey there Paul Ryan!), it's not self-evident that in such a world businesses interests would fail at convincing a majority of whites to support it. After all, that's exactly what happened the first time around when the Catholic Church's denunciation of New World slavery did precisely dick against the profits of the sugar, cotton, and tobacco interests.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2014 22:37

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011; Can't post for 3 days!

nateimm posted:

quote: