> Lol I enjoy how often people on HN descend to personal attacks as opposed to discussion on the merits.
Not a personal attack, it was just an observation.
> You realize this was a democratic rallying cry until the 60s? Democrats were the ones trying to limit who votes, hanging, and burning towns.
I don't like the Democratic party either, but this ignores the party switch that occurred during the Nixon election. If you want to learn more about the Southern Strategy look up Barry Goldwater and Republican campaign strategist Lee Atwater. "States Rights" has traditionally been the rallying cry of racist regressives, regardless of party affiliation.
> I encourage you to read source material. What I’m reading from you is exceedingly partisan and not really a balanced view or even historical view; it’s mostly propaganda.
I don't like either mainstream US party, also you don't know anything about the history literature I consume. The primary sources I consume inform my views. Here's one from the mouth of Lee Atwater, the aforementioned strategist:
> Ah that 1619 project… the Marxist rewrite of American history.
I have never read the 1619 project. I mostly read books written about the specific histories of commodities like lumber or tobacco or oil, but if you know anything about US history you understand why Slavery is so important and how it shaped our institutions and discourse. It's not "Marxist". But being so quick to dismiss a retelling of US history with slavery is a giveaway that you might be a little bit of a right-leaning reactionary. How is it any more of a rewrite than the deification of George Washington in our K-12 education?
It appears that you've exhausted your arguments at this point. You have no refutation so now you're claiming I'm biased when you are trying to make a "both sides bad" and "you're biased" argument to claim victory. You also failed to respond to my other comment in this thread because whatever stance you have taken crumbles under any scrutiny.
You are either being intellectually dishonest because you are too cowardly to take a hard stance on your regressive views, or you're just unaware of history. Either way it's not very interesting, I could have the same argument in a thousand Youtube comment sections.
From the first comment, you called me a reactionary, regularly been condescending and assumed I didn’t know anything. This is indeed a personal attack:
> After responding to a lot of your comments it seems like you don't have a great grasp of US history.
As you said, we likely see history through a different lens because of what we read / experience. Im familiar with Goldwater, the strategy shift was “required” after the democrats shift. Aka there’s two parties they’re always vying for votes. That’s the nature of things, my point was it wasn’t either party in particular. They shift over time based on the voting base they’re trying to capture to maintain power.
I can say that without any emotional attachment or support or endorsements. I’ve frankly endorsed nothing in these discussions, mostly pointed a contrary viewpoint out that hasn’t been mentioned.
Generally, the comments such as
> States Rights has always been an anti-democratic rallying cry, and the main mechanism that the Republican party uses to stay in control is by limiting who can vote.
Was in fact a false statement throughout history. It’s also an extremely bias and dangerous narrative being spun. Today, states like California claim to be a “sanctuary state”, which lets them capture extra electoral votes. Or Colorado ignoring drug laws. While the republicans do discuss states rights. The democrats are at least as willing, if not more willing, to wield power. Look at representative districts in Illinois lol. Yet all we here are “republicans are going to steal the election, blah blah blah” garbage. Both do the same thing.
Regardless, the condescension is think in this conversation is breathtaking
> You are either being intellectually dishonest because you are too cowardly to take a hard stance on your regressive views, or you're just unaware of history.
I don’t need to actually take stances to have discussions. I enjoy mulling over ideas and considering others viewpoints. Unfortunately, this has devolved to name calling.
Regarding:
> It appears that you've exhausted your arguments at this point. You have no refutation so now you're claiming I'm biased when you are trying to make a "both sides bad" and "you're biased" argument to claim victory. You also failed to respond to my
I try to respond thoughtfully. At the same time, personal attacks are beneath you. There’s a lot of comments, I don’t respond to all because I frankly can’t. The bias is being pointed out not to “claim victory” but attempting to point out a hole in knowledge. It’s difficult to have an honest discussion when one party is calling the other a “reactionary” or “regressive”. There are factually wrong statements:
> States Rights has always been an anti-democratic rallying cry
Such as the above ^ states are closer to a democracy in the US. The federal government is a republic, state governments are closer to and can be a direct democracy (e.g. Californians propositions).
> It’s also an extremely bias and dangerous narrative being spun. Today, states like California claim to be a “sanctuary state”, which lets them capture extra electoral votes. Or Colorado ignoring drug laws.
I see no issue with states having the ability to make laws that contradict the federal government, so long as it is an expansion of rights. Allowing states to constrict the rights of its citizens will always result in a tyranny of the majority. Again, I don't care about the mechanisms I care about the outcomes. "States Rights" have always been a thing, but it is only invoked as a rallying cry when trying to pass legislature that goes against the moral grain of the majority of the country. Californians don't need to say "States Rights" to pass weed and immigration laws, it is understood that they can mind their business. Southern States need to cry about "States Rights" during slavery, segregation, abortion, and now voter suppression, because their views are nationally unpopular and considered backwards my a majority of Americans.
Again, your inability (or unwillingness) to understand the difference between a state increasing net freedom and encroaching on human rights is the source of my frustration.
> Regardless, the condescension is think in this conversation is breathtaking
Whatever you perceive as condescension is because you have so far seemed incapable of understanding that my entire point has been about the outcomes rather than the process of legislation. I don't care who has what power if that power is only being used for negative means. Do you really care about the structure of government if the outcome is bad for everyone? Your inability to reconcile that fact leads me to believe that you are either naive or hold reactionary viewpoints that you wont explicitly list. After all you have said that you think the 1964 Civil Rights act was overall bad. There is no "both sides" to human rights, that is what you continuously fail to understand and why I assume you are either naive/uneducated or a reactionary.
> I don’t need to actually take stances to have discussions. I enjoy mulling over ideas and considering others viewpoints. Unfortunately, this has devolved to name calling.
Except you're incapable of factoring in the real-world harm that occurs to people. Politics is not something that you can look at like a mechanical system to be arranged in any sense. Certain arrangements cause untold human suffering.
You also immediately referred to The 1619 Project pejoratively as "Marxist". You are defensive of reactionary policies like abortion bans and hesitant when it comes to anything left-of-center like the Civil Rights Act or a history book on Slavery. YOU have shown me your bias and only take offense when I ascribe it to you. If that's name calling then show some objectivity.
Whatever partisanship has come through on my side comes through in the defense of human rights. I despise both parties as corporatist and would vote for whoever is trying to maximize human liberty. However in the current paradigm the Republican party seeks to restrict it more than the Democratic party, although I would consider both to be fascist.
> Such as the above ^ states are closer to a democracy in the US. The federal government is a republic, state governments are closer to and can be a direct democracy (e.g. Californians propositions).
This may have been error on my part. I was using "anti-democratic" as shorthand to mean "harms minority groups", a democracy is better for the majority in-group, but allows them to have tyranny over minority groups. A republic may restrict the majority group from total control, but it allows minority groups to have some protection. Again, I don't care if a system is a republic or a democracy, I care about how that power is used.
Not a personal attack, it was just an observation.
> You realize this was a democratic rallying cry until the 60s? Democrats were the ones trying to limit who votes, hanging, and burning towns.
I don't like the Democratic party either, but this ignores the party switch that occurred during the Nixon election. If you want to learn more about the Southern Strategy look up Barry Goldwater and Republican campaign strategist Lee Atwater. "States Rights" has traditionally been the rallying cry of racist regressives, regardless of party affiliation.
> I encourage you to read source material. What I’m reading from you is exceedingly partisan and not really a balanced view or even historical view; it’s mostly propaganda.
I don't like either mainstream US party, also you don't know anything about the history literature I consume. The primary sources I consume inform my views. Here's one from the mouth of Lee Atwater, the aforementioned strategist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_8E3ENrKrQ
> Ah that 1619 project… the Marxist rewrite of American history.
I have never read the 1619 project. I mostly read books written about the specific histories of commodities like lumber or tobacco or oil, but if you know anything about US history you understand why Slavery is so important and how it shaped our institutions and discourse. It's not "Marxist". But being so quick to dismiss a retelling of US history with slavery is a giveaway that you might be a little bit of a right-leaning reactionary. How is it any more of a rewrite than the deification of George Washington in our K-12 education?
It appears that you've exhausted your arguments at this point. You have no refutation so now you're claiming I'm biased when you are trying to make a "both sides bad" and "you're biased" argument to claim victory. You also failed to respond to my other comment in this thread because whatever stance you have taken crumbles under any scrutiny.
You are either being intellectually dishonest because you are too cowardly to take a hard stance on your regressive views, or you're just unaware of history. Either way it's not very interesting, I could have the same argument in a thousand Youtube comment sections.