Ultraconservatives pretend homophobia/racism doesn't exist

Post Reply New Topic

IF racism usw. are actually denied [not just denying that certain stances/actions are racist ktl], how is that any worse / sillier than pretending that racism etc. can be eradicated, when the Green Monkey syndrome is apparently a human universal?

Maybe the far-right doesn't deny all instances of racism, but they certainly like to image that it's a lot more peripheral then it is. Secondly, while racism can't be eradicated that's no reason to ignore it. While it'll always exist in one subtle, unconcious form or another it doesn't have be as destructive or outright as it is now. Drawing awareness to it conciously is the best way to counteract unconcious prejudice.

Last edited by Master_Pedant on 17 Oct 2010, 1:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

What I don't understand about the right is the fact that they espouse unlikely conspiracy theories and constantly claim to be persecuted by "liberals" and their "pee-cee" values. Yet whenever they show their actual positions on issues it's clear that they don't adhere to a simple hands-off "live and let live" philosophy as they claim. They only want to be "free" so they can persecute others. It was the same with all the "state's rights" BS in the past.

It's funny how even some present-day liberal Democrats are stupid enough to imagine that Barry Goldwater was a "principled conservative" and not one of today's racist-backed swines - that's to say they're completely ignorant of what his "State's Rights" campaign was really about.

Last edited by Master_Pedant on 17 Oct 2010, 1:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

I also don't really understand the principle behind "state's rights". Strict "constitutionalists", who have historically opposed federal government intervention in matters of social-justice, claim that their opposition is on the grounds that the constitution is a check on the power of government. Yet in principle they should oppose the power of state governments just as much as they oppose the power of federal government. I don't see any principle or argument as to why state governments are less dangerous to personal liberty than the federal government.

You left out at least one alternative:

What about liberal pinko stinko commie democrats?

ruveyn

Self-described Progressive Democrats (the group I take it you refer to when issuing your idiosyncratic use of "pinko ... commie) can fall under "other minority".

Well, I see an argument as to why state governments are less dangerous. The issue is size. State governments are easier to move away from. Also, another argument is that it is easier to fit state policies to their population than it is to do the same for national policies.

I mean, I agree with Master_Pedant that states rights has historically been mostly a southern cry for the right to oppress blacks.(assuming that's what he meant) I do not think that every person who has historically pushed for states rights has had that intention though.

Even further, the issue is that state governments are not seen as overstepping their bounds as much as federal governments I think. Historically, welfare functions used to be more of a states rights issue, even with opponents of federal spending supporting states having welfare systems. Some have argued that the position of opposing federal legislation, but supporting state legislation was part of Calvin Coolidge's ideology. So, I don't see the massive inconsistency. I just think that strict constitutionalism does not have enough recommending it as an idea.

Although there would be issues with homogeneity of laws, I think it would be better if laws were fitted to the individual cities. Especially for states that are rather large and with gas prices prohibitive to moving. That way, if a city passed a law detrimental to its denizens they could more easily relocate.

States rights is about a smaller, more localized government that is better suited to local needs. States rights started out primarily as a matter of economic policy. Slavery was out on the periphery of the states rights debate until Abraham Lincoln made it a huge issue after 2 years into the civil war (which sparked mass desertions on both sides).

QFT.
Thankfully, the founding fathers were wise enough to establish a secular constitution whose only mention of gods or religion was in forbidding the government to establish or show favoritism for any one religion over another. Biblical prejudice against gays has no more place in government than biblical prejudice against women or shellfish.

The founding fathers grew up in a Christian culture that had an effect on their views. Given the prevailing culture at the time, the founding fathers would never have intended the constitution to protect homosexuality. It appears they never thought society would degenerate that badly.

that is a flimsy argument. instead of an effective counter-argument, you have only speculation as to why you think the founding fathers chose a secular government. your statement is paper-thin and doesn't hold water.

homosexuality is not a recent phenomenon, and you have no way of knowing whther the founding fathers were pro-homosexuality, anti-sexuality, or neutral. the only evidence that we have is the fact of their choice to create a secular government. all else is vague conjecture.

Benjamin Franklin had some pretty well-known, risque sexual practices. He was one of the founders of this country; if they had wanted to ostracize sexual wierdness, he wouldn't have been a part of their group.

In addition, most of the founders were deists, not christians. They deliberately chose not to pray at the constitutional convention, and leaving religion out of the constitution was thoroughly discussed. It was *not* an oversight or an assumption on their part. The founders had seen first-hand how divisive religion can be when it is mixed with politics, and they wanted to spare the nation of that plague.

The OP seems to have confused asserting that the terms "racist" and "homophobe" have lost much of their original meaning due to their heavy use to politically stigmatize, with claiming that the underlying meanings, bigotry against various races and homosexuals, doesn't happen. I called it "lexicographical inflation" in another thread, and I'm standing by the term when it comes to the current North American usage of racism and homophobia, as well as terrorism and socialism.

that is so interesting! i love knowing about the people behind ideas and events. i have no knowledge of this area of history (for obvious location-related reasons).