I don't have to rationalize anything. Slavery can be bad, but slaves could have been able to use the skills learned working on plantations for employment in post-abolition. These two things can be true at once.
Slavery CAN be bad??
You lost me after that.
Wow.
I'm not surprised, reading comprehension and critical thinking are not strongsuits of leftists these days.
Bigots can be bad with hearts full of genuine hatred, but bigots can also act polite and professional when taking a black person's lunch order at Chik-Fil-A or appear well spoken when passing discriminatory legislation against gay people. These two things can be true at once.
I note that you are correct that this is not part of the AP AA studies class, I was mistaken about that (because of his recent rejection of the AP AA program which resulted in an overhaul of its curriculum (which happened in January)).
That doesn't impact my position - DeSantis is actively inserting himself into the minutiae of an education syllabus as part of a comprehensive effort to make schools the culture war battleground and that adding a irrelevant fact to a syllabus is evidence of that, even if the fact itself is defensible on its face.
I guess you could use the fact that some slaves used their newfound trade skills to excuse or justify slavery. It would be a pretty flimsy argument but you could try to make it nonetheless. You could also make the argument that slaves using their skills to improve upon their terrible situation despite the circumstances speaks to their resiliency and resourcefulness. Rupp mentioned how some slaves were able to use the money gained from their trade to buy their freedom, which I think would be inspiring stories that should be told and not hidden.
I'm not surprised, reading comprehension and critical thinking are not strongsuits of leftists these days.
He can read fine. He's just appalled, as anyone of good conscience should be, that we've gone from "slavery is bad" to "slavery can be bad" in just a few short years. It's sickening that you wrote those words, and you should own up to it instead of doubling down. But you won't, because you fear that walking anything back--even something as vile as what you wrote--would be "giving in to the woke mob," when in reality it would simply be "reclaiming your decency as a human being."
Try it, for once. Try posting, "I shouldn't have said that 'slavery can be bad.' I acknowledge that the practice of legal 'ownership' of another human is fundamentally revolting and is always bad." You don't have to rescind anything else you've said; you can stand by everything else and still admit that your choice of words in this case was thoughtless and inaccurate. It's your decision, but with this one problem. If you don't post this, we'll all know how you actually feel about owning other humans: sure, slavery can be bad--but it can also work out pretty well!
I'm not surprised, reading comprehension and critical thinking are not strongsuits of leftists these days.
He can read fine. He's just appalled, as anyone of good conscience should be, that we've gone from "slavery is bad" to "slavery can be bad" in just a few short years. It's sickening that you wrote those words, and you should own up to it instead of doubling down. But you won't, because you fear that walking anything back--even something as vile as what you wrote--would be "giving in to the woke mob," when in reality it would simply be "reclaiming your decency as a human being."
Try it, for once. Try posting, "I shouldn't have said that 'slavery can be bad.' I acknowledge that the practice of legal 'ownership' of another human is fundamentally revolting and is always bad." You don't have to rescind anything else you've said; you can stand by everything else and still admit that your choice of words in this case was thoughtless and inaccurate. It's your decision, but with this one problem. If you don't post this, we'll all know how you actually feel about owning other humans: sure, slavery can be bad--but it can also work out pretty well!
Nope, not dignifying your blatant attempt to twist my words by giving in to your demands. My words were perfectly clear. Maybe stop your temper tantrum and you'll be able to comprehend what I said.
This post was edited 41 seconds after it was posted.
One side of my family immigrated in the mid-late 1800s to the greatest state in the US (Florida), while the other (non-"white", unlike you) came in the 1950s. My lived experience trumps yours.
One side of my family immigrated in the mid-late 1800s to the greatest state in the US (Florida), while the other (non-"white", unlike you) came in the 1950s. My lived experience trumps yours.
What was that you were saying about Trump? Your figurehead? But you're right - I don't have your experience of holding racial supremacist beliefs.
He can read fine. He's just appalled, as anyone of good conscience should be, that we've gone from "slavery is bad" to "slavery can be bad" in just a few short years. It's sickening that you wrote those words, and you should own up to it instead of doubling down. But you won't, because you fear that walking anything back--even something as vile as what you wrote--would be "giving in to the woke mob," when in reality it would simply be "reclaiming your decency as a human being."
Try it, for once. Try posting, "I shouldn't have said that 'slavery can be bad.' I acknowledge that the practice of legal 'ownership' of another human is fundamentally revolting and is always bad." You don't have to rescind anything else you've said; you can stand by everything else and still admit that your choice of words in this case was thoughtless and inaccurate. It's your decision, but with this one problem. If you don't post this, we'll all know how you actually feel about owning other humans: sure, slavery can be bad--but it can also work out pretty well!
Nope, not dignifying your blatant attempt to twist my words by giving in to your demands. My words were perfectly clear. Maybe stop your temper tantrum and you'll be able to comprehend what I said.
I'm not twisting anything. This is what you wrote: "Slavery can be bad, but slaves could have been able to use the skills learned working on plantations for employment in post-abolition."
You wrote what you wrote, and, like a good rightist, you refuse to even walk back the worst part of it. Just say it: "I know that slavery is bad." By doing so, you're not "giving in to my demands"; you're taking back the part of your soul you amputated when you indicated that slavery isn't always entirely bad. This is about you and your own broken moral compass, not me.
It's sort of funny: you're just walking around in the world, perfectly content with the idea that owning other humans "can be bad." Like, that's a position you're okay with--even more, that you're willing to stake yourself to, despite being given the opportunity to revise. That's you: the guy who, even anonymously, can't write, "Slavery is always bad." Yikes.
Nope, not dignifying your blatant attempt to twist my words by giving in to your demands. My words were perfectly clear. Maybe stop your temper tantrum and you'll be able to comprehend what I said.
I'm not twisting anything. This is what you wrote: "Slavery can be bad, but slaves could have been able to use the skills learned working on plantations for employment in post-abolition."
You wrote what you wrote, and, like a good rightist, you refuse to even walk back the worst part of it. Just say it: "I know that slavery is bad." By doing so, you're not "giving in to my demands"; you're taking back the part of your soul you amputated when you indicated that slavery isn't always entirely bad. This is about you and your own broken moral compass, not me.
It's sort of funny: you're just walking around in the world, perfectly content with the idea that owning other humans "can be bad." Like, that's a position you're okay with--even more, that you're willing to stake yourself to, despite being given the opportunity to revise. That's you: the guy who, even anonymously, can't write, "Slavery is always bad." Yikes.
I think what he was trying to say was that slavery being wrong and slaves using certain skills to their benefit are not mutually exclusive.
I'm not twisting anything. This is what you wrote: "Slavery can be bad, but slaves could have been able to use the skills learned working on plantations for employment in post-abolition."
You wrote what you wrote, and, like a good rightist, you refuse to even walk back the worst part of it. Just say it: "I know that slavery is bad." By doing so, you're not "giving in to my demands"; you're taking back the part of your soul you amputated when you indicated that slavery isn't always entirely bad. This is about you and your own broken moral compass, not me.
It's sort of funny: you're just walking around in the world, perfectly content with the idea that owning other humans "can be bad." Like, that's a position you're okay with--even more, that you're willing to stake yourself to, despite being given the opportunity to revise. That's you: the guy who, even anonymously, can't write, "Slavery is always bad." Yikes.
I think what he was trying to say was that slavery being wrong and slaves using certain skills to their benefit are not mutually exclusive.
Slavery is always awful for those actually enslaved.
There's no denying that the descendants of slaves in America are much better off because of slavery.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.