526
this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
526 points (96.5% liked)
politics
19107 readers
3756 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Makes sense to me.
Honestly debating these people is completely pointless and should be seen as such. They're not going to argue in good faith and they will just continue to create statements that are inarguable due to confounded bullshit. Word salad after preposterous nonsense.
I respectfully disagree, I think something like this is worth a debate. That is really the only venue that you would switch someone's mind who is in the middle of the road for who to vote for in 2024 in the US. Everything with these politicians is said from a safe zone in an echo chamber of their respective parties, they need to be to talking directly to each other and hash it out in front of everyone.
No one is "middle of the road" on slavery. Either you're completely and entirely against it, or you're a piece of shit.
Which is why we don't need to debate. It's like being invited to a debate on whether water is wet.
I disagree: anybody that is "in the middle of road" and is holding that "slaves benefited from slavery" is anything other than racist drivel
is lying to you. They are not "in the middle of the road"; instead they are racist assholes that hoping for, at best, an excuse and more likely are just enjoying wasting your time.
I'm not sure how you can actually be middle of the road on a binary choice.
Thing A or thing B?
Both but only half of each.
There is absolutely nothing to debate.
These debates aren’t about what’s said but about who “wins” and the person who “won” is dependent on what media outlet is covering it. If you’re so middle of the road that you don’t know who to pick, you’re going to watch a debate?
Exactly If your on the fence on weather slavery was beneficial or not then no debate can help you.
Who is still on the fence about whether slavery was beneficial to the slaves? Who would that debate be for?
The debate would not be over slavery, I would love if it was. That's an easy win for the left. Obviously the conservative party is malicious, and still tells it's followers it's not racist, it's not misogynistic. Ideal world is Kamala goes to the heart of Florida or Texas, and debates the shit out of Desantis on every subject. Walks all over him and shows the world how the US really feels. That's what I'm calling for.
FYI I upvoted you.
I get your intended idea, but in this case, what is there to debate about slavery = bad?
Anyone “on the fence” about that is just a bit too far gone for common sense, let alone words/a debate to reach.
The "middle of the road" position is that slavery was a centuries-long atrocity. Anyone who thinks otherwise he is too far gone to be worth trying to persuade of anything.
We already had the debate over whether or not slavery was good. It happened between 1860 and 1865 and the "wasn't good" side won.
That's how slavery in America was first abolished, right? Well, nvm that it wasn't really considering the prison industrial complex.
If your mind is in the middle of the road about slavery benefiting the slaves, you should volunteer to be a slave, just to clear that up for you.
Couple of years on a prison chain gang ought to do it.
After that should there be a debate about whether slaughtering babies and raping women might not be pure evil?
That would be a bit redundant since they should be covered as part of the 'debate' about whether slavery was beneficial.
if you aren’t sure that slavery was a bad thing, it’s pretty clear what side you’re on.
I'm a lefty that does appreciate debate in certain contexts, which seems to be somewhat unpopular nowadays. There would be no benefit in having a debate here except maybe in a very, very, very, very, very, very contextual, academic forum of a thought experiment (and I'm highly skeptical of even that, as you would have to presuppose some truly monstrous things).
Desantis is not going to be in that forum. He's going to platform KKK rhetoric used as a justification for slavery for nearly a century after its abolition. His staffers are quite literally Nazis. The ethics of chattel slavery are very clear cut, similarly to how the ethics of sexual abuse are clear cut: for all but an infinitesimal section of people, the only people advocating for them are monstrous, disgusting bigots.
There's nothing to debate.
And when one party is playing by no rules, there's no discussion.
Is anyone really undecided about this topic, still?
If so there are far better ways to reach them than pretending both viewpoints are legitimate. You really have to get to the crux of the issue and people have to really grok what life is like if you're not white, cis, het, etc.
Debate is a game for perverts