NBC admits doctoring Zimmerman 911 call

[Guest]

Droopy,
That you call your wholesale acceptance and mindless parroting of nonsense from right-wing web sites "rational" and "serious discourse" is astonishingly brazen.

-----
Edited: reworded to assuage Droopy's outrage ("hate speech" changed to "nonsense"). I still think it's hate speech, but it's not worth the effort to document it.

[_Droopy]

Far more foolish to spout your racist...ideology openly, as you do here.

CFR.

I'm calling you out, Bluffalo. Put up or shut up.

[_Droopy]

Droopy,
That you call your wholesale acceptance and mindless parroting of hate speech from right-wing web sites "rational" and "serious discourse" is astonishingly brazen.

CFR. Put up or shut up, as with Bluffalo.


1. Define "hate speech," its core elements, perameters, and central themes.

2. Show where I've ever used it.

3. Show where my sources, to the degree I have selected and used such, have articulated any arguments or views having racist, bigoted, or anti-black content.

[_Buffalo]

Far more foolish to spout your racist...ideology openly, as you do here.

CFR.

I'm calling you out, Bluffalo. Put up or shut up.

You're not disputing your sexism and homophobia? Well, that's progress.

Concerning your racism, asked and answered:

And thus, Droopy proves once and for all that Southern slavery wasn't a racist institution, since Latin Americans, Jews, Asians, and Amerindians weren't slaves in the South.

Actually, a very strong argument can be made that it wasn't a "racist" institution in the modern sense of the term "racist," but primarily an economic institution held over from about 6,000 years of old world cultural tradition that was transplanted to North America. The concept of "racism" as we now understand it is, to a great degree, a post-civil war intellectual concept.

In any case, I highly doubt Southerners of that era were hot to trot about going to church with Indians, Mexicans, Jews, Catholics, or Chinese coolies.

And why I'm even responding to this troll I'm not at all sure.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 7&start=63

[_Droopy]

Concerning your racism, asked and answered:

And thus, Droopy proves once and for all that Southern slavery wasn't a racist institution, since Latin Americans, Jews, Asians, and Amerindians weren't slaves in the South.

Actually, a very strong argument can be made that it wasn't a "racist" institution in the modern sense of the term "racist," but primarily an economic institution held over from about 6,000 years of old world cultural tradition that was transplanted to North America. The concept of "racism" as we now understand it is, to a great degree, a post-civil war intellectual concept.

In any case, I highly doubt Southerners of that era were hot to trot about going to church with Indians, Mexicans, Jews, Catholics, or Chinese coolies.

And why I'm even responding to this troll I'm not at all sure.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=22787&start=63

I suppose that, being a leftist, I'm going to have to take you by the hand and walk you slowly and carefully, point by point, argument by argument, through this entire thing. Yes folks, its time for left-wing pre-school and Sir Bluffalot is at the front of the class for a little philosophy/history/critical thinking lesson

Any other liberals/leftists who would like to join in on this object lesson are welcome. Shall we get started? Good.


How is a perspective that argues that the Atlantic slave trade was not primarily grounded in race (as historical realities militate against thinking, as the actual initial enslaving was not done by Europeans but by black Africans, who were the primary purveyors of black slaves to America (and the Caribbean and Latin America, where the vast majority of black slaves actually went), but was one phase of a 5,000 to 6,000 year economic/social institution that was well established across a broad specturm of world cultures and civilizations, racist?

How can pointing out that the virulent racism associated with the deep south and with views of blacks that came to be associated with Jim Crow laws and segregation arose primarily as an antebellum phenomena, and was not, though it existed, the main impetus for the Atlantic slave trade, nor the massive black African and Muslim slave infrastructure that lay at the bottom of it, be considered "racist?"

I never said that Southern slavery (and why the narrow focus on that, I wonder?) was not justified and intellectually waved aside by appeal to a concept of inherent black inferiority. What I've argued is that race was not the main impetus and foundation of slavery of any kind, in that age, but that it was an economic and social practice with thousands of years of history and general acceptance across a broad swath of mankind, of which the Atlantic slave trade was but one manifestation, and in no way unique.

How are these observations and arguments "racist?"

The fact that Latin Americans, Jews etc. were not slaves in the old South had nothing to do with my argument regarding the fundamentally economic and sociocultural origins and practice of slavery but with my contention that the priesthood ban was about lineage, and not "race," as no traditional Caucasian racism (or other kinds, say traditional Chinese ethnocentrism) narrowly singled out a tiny bandwidth of human beings in that way, while exempting others.

Indeed, some of the strongest evidence that racism per se was a secondary ideological justification and moral circumvention of the practice, and not its major motive, was the substantial presence of black plantation owners who owned slaves in New England, a practices such fee blacks, coming to the American colonies from Africa, would have been well acquainted with within their own cultural milieu.

How is this "racist?"

Put up, Bluff, or again, shut up. You're classical leftist calumnies require a bit more support that a retreat to the standard PC well poisoning verbiage people like you have for too long grown accustomed to deploying when your back's against the wall.

[_Buffalo]

Let me get this straight. You're asking me how it is racist to declare that slavery wasn't a racist institution? Is that what you're going with here?

Really?

[_Droopy]

Let me get this straight. You're asking me how it is racist to declare that slavery wasn't a racist institution? Is that what you're going with here?

Really?

I see. This is how you got your name "Bluffalo" and "Sir Bluffalot," my friend.

I accept your white flag and your nice dance around the questions and arguments I posted above, asking for clarification.

I won't be holding my breath.

[_Buffalo]

Let me get this straight. You're asking me how it is racist to declare that slavery wasn't a racist institution? Is that what you're going with here?

Really?

I see. This is how you got your name "Bluffalo" and "Sir Bluffalot," my friend.

I accept your white flag and your nice dance around the questions and arguments I posted above, asking for clarification.

I won't be holding my breath.

You still think American slavery of Africans wasn't racist.

I concede the rest of my time to my opponent.

[_Droopy]

You still think American slavery of Africans wasn't racist.

Is that something I've ever claimed? Think hard, Bluff. I've just clarified my position for the umpteenth time above.

I concede the rest of my time to my opponent.

[_Buffalo]

Is that something I've ever claimed? Think hard, Bluff.

Actually, a very strong argument can be made that it wasn't a "racist" institution in the modern sense of the term "racist," but primarily an economic institution held over from about 6,000 years of old world cultural tradition that was transplanted to North America. The concept of "racism" as we now understand it is, to a great degree, a post-civil war intellectual concept.

:)