Identity politics...

Post Reply New Topic

Lincoln believed blacks should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor, the same as whites, rather than being property. And while Lincoln probably had had racial beliefs that would be abhorrent today, he was still far ahead of almost anyone else at the time in racial tolerance.

I agree.

Getting back on topic...

I will continue to advocate for autistic freedom of choice with the realisation that it is in effect "pissing in the wind..."
Some may call it recalcitrant...but that doesn't make it invalid...

Something I read in "MAD" magazine around 50 years ago: "Eat s**t/shite...A million flies can't be wrong..."
Just because the vast majority believe/accept an intellectual <cough> concept, doesn't give it intellectual integrity...

Over the years here on this website, I have come across a few, what I would call misguided autistics, chastising me and others for being reactionary...

Personally I see these individuals as having been brainwashed/indoctrinated into embracing establishment fluff and nonsense devoid of intellectual profundity...

Apparently, stating the self-evident that we autists have a different set of life determining psychological parameters due to an alternate neurological make-up is being desentive...
From my point of view, it is another indication of abuse through group-think keeping individualist into line so as not to rock the boat of the majority sheeple of our communities...
It is another mechanism to pacify those with a limited imagination that other perspective also have validity...
Once again, it is an indication of the ironic, but literal adoptation of the saying: "Eat s**t/shite...a million flies can't be wrong..."

He was a white supremacist that pretended to care about black people for political reasons. Him helping to wipe out Native Americans cuts through all the tripe about him being some civil rights activist.

Sure, Lincoln didn't have a great record with Native Americans, but how is pretending to care about blacks supposed to help him when racism was so prominent in America at that time?
I will add, while your own Winston Churchill heroically fought Hitler, he still had no problem with keeping the people of India, who he regarded as sub-human, under the British heel. Should Churchill be remembered only as a white supremacist?

"Didn't have a great record" as in helped the genocide. Ending slavery like a Europe had. Certainly had nothing to do with helping with black people.
Churchill was just a paid war monger.

In fact, Lincoln's private letters reveal a lifelong disdain for slavery. He was searching for the right time he could have put an end to it, as America on s of the Mason-Dixon line were extremely racist. It's not like he could have woken up any morning as President and said: "Why, I think I'll free the slaves today!" Frederick Douglass, who had been very critical of Lincoln's seeming glacially slow actions against slavery, only recognized how Lincoln had had to choose his moments by the right times as dictated by circumstances after his assassination.

His speeches show he was a white supremacist. He probably was aware that slavery had been ended elsewhere and wasn't good for the US's image.

Lincoln was a politician; he told voters what he knew they wanted to hear in order to stay in office. Only by staying in office was he able to end slavery. Very much the same thing LBJ did in regard to civil rights.

Another reason why emphasising the divergent weltanschauung of autistics is relevant, is to inform...

One of the indignities those on the spectrum need to endure from NTs is the phenomenon of "projection"...

How many times are we accused of something which is incorrectly perceived in us and is a reflection of the NT mindset?...
Perversely, some autistics accept the denial of "the reality of his own existence to the deluded consciousness of others."

Incidentally, it has become clear that this phenomenon is largely a result of both a dissociated state of mind and a lack of self confidence as a direct result of interpersonal confusion through neurological divergence...

Personally I find it unfortunate that so many autistics adopt an attitude that they must contort themselves into the neurotypical mould and suppress their inherent autistic legitimate diversity...
An attitude of integrity would involve realising/validating autistic/NT neurological differences, "to thine own self be true", and understanding the "deluded consciousness of others" should be factored into "inter-species" interaction...

Which brings me to another pet hate of mind in regards to NT social protocols:
The need to adopt a false social persona to cater to the needs of NT sensitivities...

Some may by necessity kowtow to the demands of NT social belligerence as in a work situation, but to adopt a subservient or "slave" mentality, as Nietzsche would say, is denying the development of self actualisation of our "higher human" attributes, as Nietzsche would also have expressed...

A rather self-evident empowering attitude is to simply recognise our differences, accept the inherent injustice of a reality corrupting social order, but segregate our philosophical position from "the deluded consciousness of others"...

The NT mindset of venerating emotional satiation to the point of corrupting truth/reality is not only an insult to intellectual integrity, it is profoundly disrespectful to the dignity of every individual who succumbs to this NT social indoctrination/intimidation...

It is staggering that so many worship the lesser evolved aspect of our evolutionary development...
Nuff said...

I thank you...<bow>
<exit stage right>...

It's a bad thing. It's bad when the left does it and it's bad when the right does it. It's worst when done by Anti-SJWs who are more obsessed with race and gender than the alleged SJWs.

If all politics is identity politics, that doesn't necessarily mean it's not a bad thing.

LOL right, he just pretended to be a white supremacist so he could end slavery When the evidence goes against your narrative you just make something silly up.

No, that's the common perception of Lincoln by most legitimate historians. This was at a time when abolitionists were regarded the same way communists were in 1950's McCarthyist America. It would have been political suicide for Lincoln to have expressed his actual feelings about race and slavery, till he could move northern public opinion toward emancipation.
Why is it that you place more value on Lincoln's words rather than his actions?

Historians aren't above pushing conspiracy theories. I'm just going with the non fairy tale version. His treatment of the Natives doesn't go along with the fairy tales.

What you're pushing is a fractured fairy tale. No, Lincoln wasn't perfect. His treatment of Native Americans was bad. But he saved America from breaking to pieces, and he put an end to slavery, a reprehensible evil which was at the root of that potential end of American unity. That alone makes him America's greatest President.