Racism is for Ignorant Fools, not ATS.

Originally posted by Monteriano

Changed my mind about what? That Lincoln lived his life as a racist? I would be unable to quote him because I would be banned from this site. Why the personal attack? My wife is half black and I am no racist. I never attacked you personally and will now use my ignore button for your questionable motives. I will not stoop to your level.

No but you WILL stoop to the level of alarmist, you COULD link us to the quotes YOU say Abe made that would get you banned, and you could copy paste the quote you seem to be alleging he made as a "Personal Attack"

Since you make such a serious charge, I will post the quote in question and I am certain you must be very very mistaken

This is what he said:

I did do my research, thank you very much. That plan was discarded by him. He died the day after he called for blacks to vote. He started out a racist but was moving in the opposite direction. Or have you never changed your mind?

Where is the personal attack? Anyone see a personal attack? Anyone?

Now what were you saying about not wanting to "stoop to his level" ?

reply to post by Stylez


"or have I never changed my mind" was the personal attack. I can not quote Lincoln because of the banned N word. You can attempt to defend your friend but I can read as well as you. Would you like me to U2U some of the many Lincoln quotes? Serious charge? What do you consider serious? Alarmist? There was no alarm sent by me? Are you the same person as He? www.time.com... One of thousands.

[edit on 9/20/2009 by Monteriano]

[edit on 9/20/2009 by Monteriano]

Just to clarify - Lincoln was prejudiced. And what is beautiful about how far we have come as a society is that his views - which were radical in the opposite direction (i.e. he was WAY LESS PREJUDICED than the society he lived in) would get him drummed out of office today as being a totally unacceptable level of prejudice now! Let's all cheer for the positives we have achieved.

But let's please put the words of Lincoln in their context. Because it is in his words where he expresses his own personal prejudice that we can find that he is an example of a prejudiced person who is NOT given over to racial hatred. THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE. I don't think anyone here is stating that if you have a personal prejudice you should be sent to an island and isolated. None of us may agree with your personal prejudice, but that's our choice just as being prejudiced would be yours. What is not acceptable is to be active in HATRED of another group of people simply because you have a prejudice against them! (and that applies to sexual orientation, race, religion or rejection of same, politics, etc.)

So let's look at Lincoln's words in their context. He had already been fighting for the abolishment of slavery (for whatever his true reason was) when in the 4th debate with Stephen Douglas he relays the following:

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: It will be very difficult for an audience so large as this to hear distinctly what a speaker says, and consequently it is important that as profound silence be preserved as possible.

While I was at the hotel to-day an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. [Great laughter.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]---that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. [Cheers and laughter.] My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen to my knowledge a man, woman or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. I recollect of but one distinguished instance that I ever heard of so frequently as to be entirely satisfied of its correctness---and that is the case of Judge Douglas' old friend Col. Richard M. Johnson. [3] [Laughter.] I will also add to the remarks I have made, (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject,) that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, [laughter] but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, [roars of laughter] I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes. [Continued laughter and applause.] I will add one further word, which is this, that I do not understand there is any place where an alteration of the social and political relations of the negro and the white man can be made except in the State Legislature---not in the Congress of the United States---and as I do not really apprehend the approach of any such thing myself, and as Judge Douglas seems to be in constant horror that some such danger is rapidly approaching, I propose as the best means to prevent it that the Judge be kept at home and placed in the State Legislature to fight the measure. [Uproarious laughter and applause.] I do not propose dwelling longer at this time on this subject.

quod.lib.umich.edu...

So, yes, he was a bigot. But he was not filled with hatred - only ignorance. He was an ignorant, bigoted gentleman. Today he would be scoffed at for his ignorance here at ATS, but he would not be viewed as racially hateful.

[edit on 9-20-2009 by Valhall]

Greetings,
Many thanks to the ATS staff for providing this important message thread.

Please allow me to preface this message by stating that the practice and promotion of any form of racism is unacceptable. My intent in posting this is certainly not to "troll the website;" it's to request clarification of the necessary ATS guidelines which may seem to be contradicted by determinations made by high level politicians.

There are subjects that, as determined by politicians, have either been declared "off limits" or will invoke severe consequences if questioned or spoken about "negatively." The charges that may be filed against violators are either unknown or have not yet been published, and I have not read of any cases that have gone to trial yet.

As far as I can tell, there are no US Supreme court rulings as to the constitutionality of these declarations. There probably won't be any until enforcement gets underway.

Callers to radio talk show programs were prefacing their remarks with statements, "I'm not a racist and I can prove it." A search engine search for websites addressing the topic, - healthcare AND "is a racist" - reveals an enormous number of websites addressing the "determination" that those who "question" or those who object to healthcare legislation are to be considered "racists."

Another (albeit off topic) example comes from CBS news (plus over 300,000 websites), that the President announced, "President Barack Obama referred to American opponents of amnesty for illegal aliens as 'demagogues.' ”

Therefore, those who oppose amnesty legislation are henceforth to be considered demagogues, and must endure whatever the implied or expressed consequences or ridicule await those who are demagogues. The implication for those "racists" who oppose the Kennedy healthcare legislation, is that they will eventually be made to endure far worse consequences.

Callers to radio talk shows have expressed concerns over prosecution for violations of the Hate Crimes law, if any of these off limits topics are violated. A cursory search-engine search reveals some web pages addressing this issue.

In light of various "determinations," from high-level politicians (which seem to be more restrictive than ATS guidelines), are postings to ATS about "healthcare" and amnesty going have to be screened more than before, even if the poster is courteous and respectful? I believe the ATS staff is above any subservience to political "declarations" (vs. free speech), as long as the poster is respectful, courteous, and within the guidelines of ATS. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the question has some merit given that the "racism" label comes from the highest levels of government.

Thank you.

reply to post by Valhall


I do not believe I stated that Lincoln was hateful. He was ignorant and racist but not hateful. I believe the word hateful was yours.

Originally posted by Monteriano
reply to post by Valhall

 

I do not believe I stated that Lincoln was hateful. He was ignorant and racist but not hateful. I believe the word hateful was yours.

You know, you're getting on my nerves. You're showing a repeatable inability to comprehend what you're reading.

I never said you called him hateful. You are not the only person on this thread, and I (unlike you) was speaking to the topic at hand. Try as you might - you probably won't derail this topic by obsessing on Lincoln.

reply to post by Valhall


Read the number of lines that I wrote in comparison to yours. Who is obsessed? I was only asked to defend a statemant that I made and have done so with references as asked by another poster. With all due respect I have no obsession except with the title of the OPs thread and the hyprocracy of it.

[edit on 9/20/2009 by Monteriano]

Originally posted by Monteriano
reply to post by Valhall

 

Read the number of lines that I wrote in comparison to yours. Who is obsessed? I was only asked to defend a statemant that I made and have done so with references as asked by another poster. With all due respect I have no obsession except with the title of the OPs thread and the hyprocracy of it.

[edit on 9/20/2009 by Monteriano]

Actually, you refused to produce after several requests. Falling back on not being able to use the N word lest you got banned. I produced for you without even having to *** out any words, so your reasoning for not producing was false.

I'm not sure why you're so pissed at the request that you don't engage in racially hateful speech during discussions. You haven't made that real clear. All of you done is take the words of a man who was slightly ahead of his time and attempted to use them anachronistically to make some ill-defined point. A point you really didn't make considering your tactics were in error in the first place.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


Thank you.
I totally agree with you.

reply to post by Monteriano


If you think it was a personal attack *which it was not* hit alert. Get confirmation from the mods. He was a racist when he made those statements I do not deny that. But later statements like statements he made shortly before his death show that was changing. A racist would not come to value the opinion and word of one he hated, he did. A racist would not call for voting rights for a group he despised, he did. He changed his mind. But you instead hold to the older comments he made as if he could not change his mind..

Oh this cursed thread. Its like the Mainstreams constant reminder of racism to protect against political protests against Obama has infiltrated ATS.

I know Skeptic Overlords intentions were good because if he has a thread like this then if some make inflammatory racist remarks every so often he has a thread on record created by staff condemning this behaviour to protect his company from bad perceptions.

In the end though its just a big argument and complete waste of time. We got the trolls that say racist things in this thread to provoke. Then we have the self righteous who say that racism is evil and no one should be.
I believe both to be disingenuous.

People who are the most aggressive about "no racism" i think are in fact racist. Its the same philosophy that some hold about Homophobia Those who are Homophobic, people often think are gay.

"...doth protest too much, methinks"

The only comments i believe in threads like these are the people who are indifferent or just dismissive.

To those preaching about how they aren't racist and are getting into the arguments about it, i think have prejudices and are more in a struggle with themselves.

Don't argue



[edit on 20-9-2009 by Beefcake]

I do not think ATS Staff were expecting the backlash that has resulted in this thread. Instead of the usual ~95% ATS members that agree on these types of threads, it seems this issue has more division and less consensus than one would expect.

The intended message behind the thread is spot on: racism and bigotry will NOT be tolerated. The problem is, in my not so humble opinion, how racism and bigotry might be judged after a thread such as this. Excluding trolls and users that take pleasure out of messing the mods/admins around, a fair amount of people are genuinely concerned that they now have to be very careful about what they say because their opinions on political and social matters might lead them to get labelled a racist or bigot.

It just seems that the window that allows one to express themselves in a free and open society is getting smaller by the year. Yes there are people who do the wrong thing, but this is a minority and the majority should not be punished for this.

[edit on 20/9/2009 by Dark Ghost]

Originally posted by Dark Ghost


It just seems that the window that allows one to express themselves in a free and open society is getting smaller by the year. Yes there are people who do the wrong thing, but this is a minority and the majority should not be punished for this.

[edit on 20/9/2009 by Dark Ghost]

The window is no smaller than it's been for the 6 years I've been here. This is not a new policy. It is a restatement by the owners of this board that hateful racist commentary inserted into non-racial topics will not be tolerated. If you don't believe that it has always been this way, take the time to review historical posts from SO, Springer, etc. and see how from time to time over the years they have had to restate this is unacceptable and will not be tolerated here.

There is a quote I feel appropriate to the situation. Yep. STAR TREK! When Picard had stood trial by Q for the crimes of humanity, he and the crew of the Enterprise were put on probation to be observed. At the end of the episode, Picard was asked how the Enterprise would act from that point on. To which the response was epic beyond measure.

"If we're going to be damned, let's be damned for who we really are."

There are racists in this world, there is no denying it. I live in a haven city in the US and know without doubt that racism exists here in many forms. Racism may be one of the larger hang-ups which keeps us from our true destiny of Awakening. One day, we'll all be equal in each others eyes, but what is going to have to take place for that? What I would define as a racist, other people wouldn't. A racist comment is in the head of the reader. It's that simple.

If you get banned for being who you are, then, so be it. If you can learn to control your prejudices and NOT get banned here, you just might learn something.

Originally posted by Arrowmancer
If you get banned for being who you are, then, so be it. If you can learn to control your prejudices and NOT get banned here, you just might learn something.

Probably the most cogent post I've seen in this thread. THAT'S the point exactly. Well said.

reply to post by Arrowmancer


Well said.

There's a quote from star trek to cover just about every social issue....

Again, well said...

Here are just a few of the threads started over the years by the owners addressing this issue. The first is the T&C which has contained the intolerance of racist behavior on the board since 2003.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm sure that is not an all-inclusive list. In addition, there are myriad threads on the board that were started by members voicing their concerns over racist behavior in which you can find additional posts from the owners where they are clear they will not tolerate it.

reply to post by Arrowmancer


Excellently put! I would star this post fifty times if I could.
This is a very naughty second line. It must be whipped for the nasty wretch it is.

And then my last post in this thread will be a statement of my opinion...

To those who have chosen to feign confusion and concern over this issue and try to extrapolate it out to some grand scheme to prevent you from criticizing government policies or particular politicians, I hold your voiced concerns as dubious at best.

I question the veracity of your statements, but I don't question near as much your voracity to cause conflict and drama.

Originally posted by nine-eyed-eel

I could easily adduce further reputable mainstream studies/references that seem to militate against the exciting article you have brought to our attention above...but that would be beside the point as it would mask or obscure my broader agreement with you, on the point that this here type of fun research and discussion can both easily and appropriately be engaged in by mature non-hypocritical adults, who are actually in possession of an intellectual conscience, without any recourse to namecalling, race-baiting, and/or personal oppobrium. I myself have actually known such chat sessions to occur...

The latter, in the context of ATS and especially this thread, being the most paramount of the two.

Yet I feel like making one last comment on the former ... not in an effort to get the last word but to clarify a premise. Namely that there is far from scientific consensus on either side of this issue, As such no one can reasonably declare that there is conclusive scientific basis for genetic differences between races/cultures of people and vice versa.

Thus lacking such consensus to approach others under that basis, either on a personal or intellectual level, is by definition based on false assumptions.

Furthermore, and this is the most important aspect to this discourse in my opinion, EVEN IF there one day was scientific consensus that there are measurable genetic intelligence variations determined by race/culture, it still would not mean that one could safely generalize their approach to individuals of other races/cultures' intelligence, as all they would be doing is applying the mean/average broad brush to what is bound to be individual IQ level variation.

Last, and this should also be noted, any such study that uses IQ as the means to measure should also clarify all associated issues and inherent controversy with said measure.

This is all to say, in a rather complicated way, that there simply is no VALID reason scientific or otherwise to consider members of another race/culture as inferior or superior, especially at the individual level. Though like we have already agreed the discourse itself should not be avoided.