|
No, what I wrote was that Coates' desire to right history cannot be satisfied, regardless of what he says. A point you would have understood were you interested in discussion, and not hunting for an opportunity to do what you have done this entire thread - deflect, dismiss & disingenuously shitpost. If you cannot respond intelligently, do not respond at all.
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 08:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 15:56 |
|
|
rudatron posted:No, what I wrote was that Coates' desire to right history cannot be satisfied, regardless of what he says. TNC's first draft: "America is thoroughly hosed up. In order to achieve a healthy social discourse, we'll need to pay reparations to the descendants of slaves. And uphold our treaty obligations to Native American tribes, which will probably involve negotiated payments in lieu of resettlement (because much of that land is now covered with strip malls and swimming pools). And maybe we ought to cede some of the southern States back to Mexico. And every heterosexual male shall be required to kneel down thrice daily, turn to face San Francisco, and offer a non-denominational prayer for the soul of Harvey Milk." TNC's editor: "Hold it. That's incredibly long-winded and mostly off-topic. The prostration thing is ridiculous. Can you please summarize it into a pithy sentence, which won't immediately confuse or offend 99% of our readers?" TNC's Atlantic Article: "Reparations—by which I mean the full acceptance of our collective biography and its consequences—is the price we must pay to see ourselves squarely." Besides, it's kinda weird to criticize an activist for the fact that  he's going to continue to advocate for the amelioration of social ills, even after we've succumbed to his nagging and fixed one of our problems.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 11:16
|
|
|
rudatron can correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think it's so much that "Ta-Nehisi Coates will never be satisfied!" (implying he'll find something new to gripe about) as reparations cannot do what he wants them to do, because what he wants is an impossibility. It's capitalist materialism writ large -- "If only I get X, then I'll be satisfied." His idea of "squarely facing ... history" and a national "reckoning" is really what reparations are about, I think, because the actual, workable policies are not contingent on having that reparations discussion. How does a heterogeneous nation of 320 million "see itself squarely"? What does that mean? He cites the German reparations agreement but doesn't spend much time on the fact that it was one government paying another government for a wrong that was a decade old. Germany was not paying its Jewish citizens for centuries of antisemitism, it was paying Israel compensation for the holocaust. He then couches it all in terms of Germany 'reckoning with itself' and 'squarely facing its history'. He even recognizes it as an impossibility when he say "Reparations could not make up for the murder perpetrated by the Nazis. But they did launch Germany’s reckoning with itself," Meaning what? What was its reckoning? What changed post-reparations? He doesn't provide any German commentary in the article to back this up. What he has amounts to "Germany paid reparations, and the Israelis felt this was important, and Germany therefore squarely faced its history and reckoned with itself." It sounds to me like it wasn't about Germany's spiritual health at all. unlimited shrimp fucked around with this message at 15:36 on Feb 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
The irony of calling a psychological/spiritual argument "capitalist materialism", and the irony of a supposed socialist arguing that a clear understanding of reality is unimportant, are each truly cyclopean in their assembly of ideas, to such an extent that I cannot determine which is the greater, and which the lesser.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Your post was about how if we give in to the black guy he'll just find something else to complain about. It's absolutely true though. Advocacy groups rarely disband when their original goals are achieved. If they succeed in their goals, they have typically accumulated some sort of power and who wants to give that up?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:The irony of calling a psychological/spiritual argument "capitalist materialism", and the irony of a supposed socialist arguing that a clear understanding of reality is unimportant, are each truly cyclopean in their assembly of ideas, to such an extent that I cannot determine which is the greater, and which the lesser.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 15:43
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:What empirical data will the reparations debate give us that we do not already have? We know everything we need to know to develop and implement effective policies to improve the lives of black Americans. In practical terms, pursuing them outside the scope of "reparations" would probably produce better results. So what exactly does the reparations debate bring to the table? Is it just talk therapy writ large? In practical terms, thinking that you can implement these policies so long as dirty words like "reparations" aren't used is babyish. It assumes that the American populace, minus yourself, are a pack of cretins who can be easily fooled by changing names. In reality, once liberals became progressives after conservative mass-media made the first dirtied, progressive became a dirty word as well. So you will have to convince people to support reparations regardless, and doing it up front cuts away all the frenzied, panicked attempts to avoid having to convince people of something they don't already believe.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
blowfish posted:If you really want a glorious revolution in the major power and economy on the planet before we know how to deal with actual material problems facing the human race ( Why choose? We could both fail to deal with societal problems and with climate change! I believe that's the current plan. Altering the social structure of a major world power is not mutually exclusive with managing the effects of climate change, in fact one could argue that major social changes will be necessary in order to manage climate changes. But, I guess, "climate change is why we can't have equality" is certainly a novel takeaway. rudatron posted:The problem is that that tact is transparently deceptive, and falls to do one very key thing - show people an alternative. Without a way out, people will stick to what they know, no exceptions. In order to create that alternative, and have people believe you, you must be brutally honest, show the deficiencies of the system, but also show the correct answer. I believe generally that's what everyone is trying to do, but there is disagreement about what the deficiencies are and what the correct answer is. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Feb 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 16:39
|
|
i said race) we have never learned how to deal with before such as climate change, you should just kill yourself.
|
rudatron posted:No, what I wrote was that Coates' desire to right history cannot be satisfied, regardless of what he says. Yeah, so "if we give the black guy what he's asking for, he's still gonna whine about other stuff". Your primary goal seems to be making TNC shut up rather than actually addressing the issues he's talking about. Your solution in place of his is "forget about the past because the past is done". And yes I will quote you on that: rudatron posted:His argument sound as if it is coming from someone who has read all of these tragedies, and hears the voices cry out for justice from beyond the grave. But those voices aren't real, the dead are dead. Dragging their corpses on trial will no more alleviate them, than showing a paranoid man that his phones aren't bugged will relieve their paranoia. Right here you are literally saying that being concerned about our racist past is the same as being a paranoid man hearing voices. You clearly do not respect the basic concept. computer parts fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Feb 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
I did not say they were the same, they are obviously not the same. But they both share something in common - it's never about the reparations/phone, it's about the mind. Let me be clear here: I do not think TNC is lying. What I said was, his desire cannot be satisfied. History does not run backwards, and nothing will undo whatever damage is done. That two parties may agree to let bygones be bygones is not because that harm is undone, but because both parties recognize that that animosity cannot continue forever. It's an entirely practical and pragmatic reasons that determine whether or not a reparation is enough. This is the purpose of law, to keep society running, to keep the system going, for long enough for people to - wait for it - forget. That's it. There is no mystical higher purpose. Yet, whatever value you decide is enough, is ultimately arbitrary. You can create whatever metric you want to justify whatever amount you want. That unfortunate fact introduces doubt, and where you find doubt, you find insecurity. This is why I say TNC will never be satisfied, because what he thinks is enough isn't about the past, it's about him. If someone like him focuses on past trauma, if they fuse with it, they will never forget, they will never stop feeling that pain. And there will always been that room for doubt, either because practical concerns lead to compromise, or that final, emotional, redemeptive moment...happened to just not materialize? For some reason? Why? Because the pain wasn't real. The dead, the 'apparent' source, no longer exist, whatever you think you have in common with them is of zero consequence. What is left of the them is just a rotting carcass, that you keep poking and prodding, then wondering why you're sick all the time. What you want, more than anything, is for me to do as he has, to drag up my carcass. I refuse. It can stay in the trash, where it belongs. I'm aiming for the future. The only pain that was ever real is the material suffering of people today. So, let's look at that, see how everyone is. Some are doing pretty bad, and hell, there are definitely real bad guys making their lives worse. Let's do something about that. I think that's a productive frame of mind, compared with hunting through the past, recorded poorly and open to misinterpretation, for fleeting absolution. Effectronica posted:The irony of calling a psychological/spiritual argument "capitalist materialism", and the irony of a supposed socialist arguing that a clear understanding of reality is unimportant, are each truly cyclopean in their assembly of ideas, to such an extent that I cannot determine which is the greater, and which the lesser. code:rudatron fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Feb 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 18:46
|
|
rudatron posted:Ha ha ha ha ha, I don't believe I made such an argument. Tell you what, I'll make something, just for you: Rudatron, have you considered that I may have been responding to the guy whose post was right before mine, and not you?
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
As far as I know, the only socialists itt are me and Owl, and I don't think you're talking to owl, but apparently trump tutelage is one. Good thing to know. Tell you what though, you keep the doll, because literally no one has argued against a clear understanding of history as unimportant.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
I'm really more of an anarcho-collectivist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 20:04
|
|
rudatron posted:As far as I know, the only socialists itt are me and Owl, and I don't think you're talking to owl, but apparently trump tutelage is one. Good thing to know. Tell you what though, you keep the doll, because literally no one has argued against a clear understanding of history as unimportant. You seem to be very flustered, because you wrote "argued against a clear understanding of history as unimportant." Either you meant "for a clear understanding" or "history as important", but you can hardly have meant what you actually wrote. In any case, I said "a clear understanding of reality as unimportant", because the arguments being made are along the lines of "acknowledging responsibility doesn't mean anything", which was also, hilariously, described as an antimaterialist position. But, of course, if acknowledging responsibility doesn't mean anything, a clear understanding of reality is unimportant.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:I'm really more of an anarcho-collectivist. Splittist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:In any case, I said "a clear understanding of reality as unimportant", because the arguments being made are along the lines of "acknowledging responsibility doesn't mean anything", which was also, hilariously, described as an antimaterialist position. But, of course, if acknowledging responsibility doesn't mean anything, a clear understanding of reality is unimportant.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 20:53
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:No, that's incorrect. My point was that the "reparation discussion" would not achieve anything concrete because this "national reckoning", this "squarely facing our history" is a fantasy. It has no coordinates. It has no basis in the material world. It's empty rhetoric. That's why TNC never actually explains what it means or what it looks like, even when he has the example of Germany paying reparations for the Holocaust. All the data we need to materially improve the daily lives of black Americans, we have. Congressional recognition of the horrors of slavery has been made. The House and the Senate passed separate resolutions in 2008 and 2009 apologizing for slavery. But it doesn't matter, maybe because (the end goal of) "reparations" is a Utopian ideal and not something that's actually achievable. Hoo boy. There's a lot to unpack here. First off, congratulations on saying exactly what I said- that acknowledging responsibility, and thus clearly understanding reality, is unimportant in your opinion. However, you're inconsistent on whether it is "capitalist materialism" (sic) or something that "has no basis in the material world." Second of all, if you believe that ending racism is impossible, I'm afraid that, after I finish howling with laughter at an "anarcho-collectivist" saying such a thing, I insist that you lay out a definition of racism such that we can understand the parameters before actual discussing or disputing. Or you could hold it as axiomatic while my eyes fill with the tears of hilarity.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Hoo boy. There's a lot to unpack here. Also I meant consumerism and I think that was clear from the context, but I guess nitpicking semantic mistakes is a good way to distract from actually debating or discussing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I did not say they were the same, they are obviously not the same. But they both share something in common - it's never about the reparations/phone, it's about the mind. Let me be clear here: I do not think TNC is lying. What I said was, his desire cannot be satisfied. History does not run backwards, and nothing will undo whatever damage is done. That two parties may agree to let bygones be bygones is not because that harm is undone, but because both parties recognize that that animosity cannot continue forever. It's an entirely practical and pragmatic reasons that determine whether or not a reparation is enough. This is the purpose of law, to keep society running, to keep the system going, for long enough for people to - wait for it - forget. That's it. There is no mystical higher purpose. Yep, so once again you argue "we have to forget the past, let's pretend everything is a clean slate". It doesn't work that way in reality. the trump tutelage posted:But it doesn't matter, maybe because (the end goal of) "reparations" is a Utopian ideal and not something that's actually achievable. Ironically this is probably an accurate description of Socialism, at least for a large part of its history.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:actually debating or discussing. can't have any of that in D&D now can we
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:No, that's incorrect. My point was that the "reparation discussion" would not achieve anything concrete because this "national reckoning", this "squarely facing our history" is a fantasy. It has no coordinates. It has no basis in the material world. It's empty rhetoric. That's why TNC never actually explains what it means or what it looks like, even when he has the example of Germany paying reparations for the Holocaust. All the data we need to materially improve the daily lives of black Americans, we have. Congressional recognition of the horrors of slavery has been made. The House and the Senate passed separate resolutions in 2008 and 2009 apologizing for slavery. But it doesn't matter, maybe because (the end goal of) "reparations" is a Utopian ideal and not something that's actually achievable. But this goes beyond slavery. This extends to Jim Crow and present discrimination. But TNC laid out where he wanted to start. You state that we have all of the data that we need, yet we are still finding out poo poo that hurt African Americans that really isn't covered by any of the proposals made in this thread, especially as it pertains to housing discrimination.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 22:20
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:What does "acknowledging responsibility" mean, in your opinion? Where did I say I felt "ending racism" was impossible? Calling reparations "consumerism" is only marginally less hilarious coming from the mouth of a professed leftist than "capitalist materialism" as a description. The hilarity that is lost with the philosophical confusion disappearing is made up by a left-winger denouncing material prosperity through redistribution. You and tagalong blowfish consider "debating and discussing" to be some kind of magical state where people don't point out all the moth-holes in your intellectual fabric, but just as I have refused to attempt to figure out your conspiratorial vision, so will I refuse to let fundamental failures of ideology go without comment. Sorry. So, given that I am going to continue in this abstention from diving into the paranoid-conspiratorial complex of what reparationsists "really want", I am going to tell you that when you said that the trump tutelage posted:But it doesn't matter, maybe because (the end goal of) "reparations" is a Utopian ideal and not something that's actually achievable. you have implicitly said that ending racism was a Utopian ideal and not something that's actually achievable, because the end goal of reparations is to reduce the effects of racism for everyone in this conversation except your conspiracy theory's adherents and tedious customers of questionably legal services in the Golden Triangle. But at last, in this backwards tour, we come to the semantic argument where you demand a definition of the phrase "acknowledging responsibility", which would, according to you, render your posts abominable and disgusting to read, not worthy of any reply. Well, I find myself in some small sympathy to that position, but I will quash that, and say that, "acknowledging responsibility" means, in this context, acknowledging responsibility for racism and its consequences, which in part though not in whole would mean: 1. Americans generally recognizing that racism comes about because of the specific actions of individuals, 2. Americans generally recognizing that racism has and continues to have negative effects on the people who are targeted by it, 3. Americans generally recognizing that if they consider racism to be bad, they have a moral responsibility to act against the consequences of it. Since even the most liberal white Americans still have 42% of their number believing that black people are parasites, we are, no matter how you might argue against these three propositions in terms of them already being accomplished, well away from this being a reality.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Yep, so once again you argue "we have to forget the past, let's pretend everything is a clean slate". It doesn't work that way in reality. edit: And I want to make a real clear distinction here: there is a massive, massive difference between adopting the trauma of someone who is alive, working to alleviate that and create a better society vs. adopting the trauma of people who are dead. The first is healthy (what I do), the second is unhealthy (what you do). Replace 'trauma' with 'sins', and you get the exact same dichotomy, but instead what Coates is basically asking of white people (the racism in asking for collective guilt aside, which itself never seems to be addressed by anyone else here, other than by flailing around about 'liberals'). No psychologically healthy & confident person would ever accept that burden, and you're a fool if you expect otherwise. edit2: Like there is a real disturbing similarity here between your kind of thinking, and the whole southern-states-heritage-not-hate bullshit. What are neoconfederates, if not the people who are doing exactly what you want them to do, accepting those sins? The only thing they do, that you probably don't want them to do, is that they try and justify them. "Oh they weren't that bad" "Oh everyone got along" etc etc. What is that if not the bargaining stage? What the hell is Coates doing now, if not in that exact same stage, but with the US as a whole as the other party? rudatron fucked around with this message at 04:38 on Feb 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
rudatron posted:
This is probably the stupidest thing you've ever said. No, neoconfederates are not accepting those sins. And the whole 'stages of grief' thing is just something people say, it's not actually a psychological fact, and it's certainly not a group psychological process. Even if it were, the 'bargaining' stage doesn't take place between two parties. You read very, very close to self-parody. It just falls apart so completely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 12:31
|
|
|
To be strict, it's not a linear process, just a small list of defense mechanisms. Denial is a thing, as is displacement and rationalization. But I disagree, they're doing exactly what you want. They're owning their history. They, like TNC, they have wrapped themselves up in a historical process that is, essentially, as foreign to them as another country. Whatever you can say about them, they most definitely have taken responsibility - it's merely extremely uncomfortable for them, so they actively deny or just lash out. Funny thing that, they're not responding in the way you might like. Isn't that interesting? Isn't that very interesting, that the most broken people are the ones who dig up carcasses? While, on the other hand, the healthiest and happiest people are the ones like myself? Just a coincidence, I'm sure.
rudatron fucked around with this message at 13:59 on Feb 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 13:16
|
|
rudatron posted:To be strict, it's not a linear process, just a small list of defense mechanisms. Denial is a thing, as is displacement and rationalization. But I disagree, they're doing exactly what you want. They're owning their history. They, like TNC, they have wrapped themselves up in a historical process that is, essentially, as foreign to them as another country. Whatever you can say about them, they most definitely have taken responsibility - it's merely extremely uncomfortable for them, so they actively deny or just lash out. Funny thing that, they're not responding in the way you might like. Isn't that interesting? Isn't that very interesting, that the most broken people are the ones who dig up carcasses? While, on the other hand, the healthiest and happiest people are the ones like myself? Just a coincidence, I'm sure. Hmm, well, actually, I've been sharing your posts with a couple good psychologist friends of mine, and they've concluded that you have all the mental disorders. So, no, Rudatron, it is you who is crazy. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Hmm, well, actually, I've been sharing your posts with a couple good psychologist friends of mine, and they've concluded that you have all the mental disorders. So, no, Rudatron, it is you who is crazy. butt enough about you're self
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Hmm, well, actually, I've been sharing your posts with a couple good psychologist friends of mine, and they've concluded that you have all the mental disorders. So, no, Rudatron, it is you who is crazy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 15:01
|
|
rudatron posted:My friend, you harass people on the internet, and have picked up a nasty habit of making death threats. If the psychologists you showed them to are yours, or somehow were friends with you, yet did not intervene to help you...then I'm sorry, I think I'm going to need a second opinion. It's very telling how you and blowfish profess to operate at such a rarefied level of intellectualism you need oxygen masks, but when someone points out that your hoity-toity posts amount to "ur crazy bitch" you immediately engage in this kind of behavior. It suggests you actually don't want any kind of discourse beyond people smiling as you insult them.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
rudatron posted:To be strict, it's not a linear process, just a small list of defense mechanisms. Denial is a thing, as is displacement and rationalization. But I disagree, they're doing exactly what you want. They're not, though. Which is really obvious. I mean, this isn't even an argument on your part, it's just pretending words and concepts mean different things that they do. Calling upon someone to look at their history is really not the same as asking people to mythmake about their history and believe a bunch of convenient lies. quote:They, like TNC, they have wrapped themselves up in a historical process that is, essentially, as foreign to them as another country. Whatever you can say about them, they most definitely have taken responsibility - it's merely extremely uncomfortable for them, so they actively deny or just lash out. Yeah, you see the word 'responsibility' means that you're doing it without denying it. That's really what the word means. You can't say "I take responsibility for this, and I also deny it", it doesn't make any logical sense. What they are doing, in fact, is not taking responsibility. quote:Funny thing that, they're not responding in the way you might like. Isn't that interesting? Isn't that very interesting, that the most broken people are the ones who dig up carcasses? While, on the other hand, the healthiest and happiest people are the ones like myself? Just a coincidence, I'm sure. Are you mocking yourself again? Crowing about how you're healthy and happy in order to win points in an internet argument? Wow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:It's very telling how you and blowfish profess to operate at such a rarefied level of intellectualism you need oxygen masks, but when someone points out that your hoity-toity posts amount to "ur crazy bitch" you immediately engage in this kind of behavior. It suggests you actually don't want any kind of discourse beyond people smiling as you insult them. blowfish posted:butt enough about you're self and yes, ur crazy, bitch
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
Ahh, but here's the beautiful thing: if you ask them whether they have taken responsibility, they will say yes. Taking responsibility does not just mean stoic well natured acceptance, it just means being accountable. There are plenty of people in responsibility, who deal with it in really dumb, selfish ways, yet they are still 'responsible'. They take responsibility, they just try and justify wrongs with apologia. But they certainly see themselves as accountable for people they have never met, nor could ever meet. So if you want a kind of 'national reckoning' (And please, be honest: you're asking for more than just looking at history. You can look at anything, doesn't mean you care about it.), there's no guarantee (and a few disturbing signs against) that it will make US citizens better people, or the US a nicer place I mean, let's talk about the most egregious recent example of some real racism - Rick Snyder, the guy that has effectively poisoned a minority-majority community. Do you think he doesn't seem himself as part of some sort of True American, and as part of a Great Tradition? He's definitely not a detached technocrat. rudatron fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Feb 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Ahh, but here's the beautiful thing: if you ask them whether they have taken responsibility, they will say yes. Taking responsibility does not just mean stoic well natured acceptance, it just means being accountable. There are plenty of people in responsibility, who deal with it in really dumb, selfish ways, yet they are still 'responsible'. No, they're not. That's not what the word means. This is just you trying to redefine words so as not to be wrong. It's not a useful argument.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
I've redefined nothing, look up the word yourself. I'm mean you're not even debating at this point, my point that there's never going to be a redemption remains unacknowledged. Why even bother posting?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
I reject your
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 09:14
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I've redefined nothing, look up the word yourself. I did. Nowhere under responsibility was the idea of dodging responsibility and instead making up convenient lies to avoid responsibility. blowfish posted:I reject your To be fair, his argument completely collapses unless he does.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 13:33
|
|
|
Responsibility can be subjective. I killed some undesirables, hear me roar. Everyone should thank me for this great service to society.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Responsibility can be subjective. Sorry, don't really know what you're talking about with that last sentence. And sure, someone can say "I'm taking responsibility for my alcoholism by declaring that it's because of my Irish heritage and I don't need to stop" but that is that persons's subjective definition and a normal person would call bullshit on it. Likewise, if someone said that they were taking responsibility for slavery by saying that slaves were actually happy, a normal person would call bullshit on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Sorry, don't really know what you're talking about with that last sentence. And sure, someone can say "I'm taking responsibility for my alcoholism by declaring that it's because of my Irish heritage and I don't need to stop" but that is that persons's subjective definition and a normal person would call bullshit on it. Likewise, if someone said that they were taking responsibility for slavery by saying that slaves were actually happy, a normal person would call bullshit on it. A normal person in 2016, but not a normal person in the Deep South ca. 1850.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 15:56 |
|
|
blowfish posted:A normal person in 2016, but not a normal person in the Deep South ca. 1850. That's great, dude. Has zero to do with what's being talked about, which is asking people in 2016 to take responsibility.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 14:30
|
|