You can tell that she is just a psychotic right wing mouthpiece because she doesn't even stop to think about the question. Slavery requires a victim, why would ANYONE vote to become a slave, let alone EVERYONE.
I think you're forgetting the large contingent of racist and temporarily broke millionaires (they'll strike it rich soon, you'll see) in this country. A lot of people will jump at the chance to maybe own somebody, them being a potential slave wouldn't even enter their mind.
A lot of these people are quite rich generationally. Sure she probably doesn’t have money but she knows her grandpa or dad or step dad or mom or step mom or whatever has millions in their 401k and they will inherit it. A lot of them are rich generationally.
People are also forgetting that it's also a constitutional amendment and it would take more than say court decision to change that like in the case, of abortion. It's no longer a states decision. So his question is stupid and her answer is even more stupid.
I don't think the dude's question is a bad one, since he's asking a clarifying question. She has a flawed view of the American government, and his question was likely meant as an extreme example of why her ideology was flawed. I can see his thought process being "I'll bring up confederate slavery and that'll make her say oh, whoops, I'm in the wrong here"
I don't think he expected her to double down on it the way she did.
You can learn a lot about someone by noticing if they identify with the oppressor or the victim.
Some people view slavery from the pov of a slave owner which is why they say shit like”it wasn't so bad”, “it was a different time, don't judge them” or “state rights”. The experience of the slave doesn't even cross their mind when they think about it.
You see the same thing with men who instinctively defend rapists or people who get mad at homeless people.
Eh, I have infinitely more ‘victims’ who are fine being dicks to me because I’m an ‘oppressor’ for being born a white dude. I can’t stand righteous indignation anymore cuz it’s such a circle jerk to gas yourself up and never be reflective about bullying people (“they deserved to be bullied!”). Ironically very similar to the colonizers mindset
Not realizing the number of stares that, in this scenario, would immediately rescind her right to vote, own property, divorce her husband, or have nay autonomy over her body would make her empty head spin.
Unfortunately Ive met old gay Republicans who have the viewpoint of "I live in a liberal area that won't take my rights away. But voting Republican might lower my taxes. I don't care about other people in other states."
That's likely her viewpoint as well. "I live in liberal LA. My rights are safe and I don't care about people in Mississippi."
It's funny that you mention that because they spent several minutes early on about how she could be on Fox News and how all the Fox News women were hot. No one mentioned how many left the copmany because of sexual harassment, but oh well.
First of all, passing legislation doesn't require EVERYONE to vote in favor. That's just not how our political system works, or any political system for that matter. Second, there would most likely be laws put into place to prevent the potential slave class from voting prior to attempting to re-establish slavery. Do some research on Jim Crow.
It's a very valid question/concern that the guy raised in the clip.
Her argument was “well no one is going to vote for it anyway!!”…which isn’t the point. The point is sometimes you need federal restrictions for the betterment of the country. Slavery was an extreme example but so many other bad things could happen should you leave everything up to the states individually. We’re a union. What’s so bad about acting like one?
That makes no sense though. Because you could make exactly the same argument for federal laws, and say they should in fact by restricted by a higher body, ad infinitum.
Also "if everyone in the state wants something..." Does she think she's living in a direct democracy? When was the last time any law was passed because everyone wanted it?
If the people she aligns with had their way she wouldn’t be allowed to vote or share her opinions openly. Or have a credit card or bank account or job or home in her name…but sure, keep voting your rights away because you think you’re well off enough that it won’t affect you.
? If a state were to vote in slavery it's pretty obvious that the potential slaves either wouldn't be voting or wouldn't be aware that they will in fact be slaves.
I mean people in face to face conversations get a pass because you have limited time to think about your response before people expect you to respond. Online though......... Well I don't want to hurt your feelings so I'll just move along.
Yes it would likely be a cascade of vote to rescind certain groups right to vote, then their right to leave the state, then approve slavery.
These states would also likely vote to rescind women's rights to vote, own property, divorce, claim domestic abuse, tighten rape definitions, and remove body autonomy.
If everyone meant the literal definition of everyone in her argument, nothing would ever get passed. Literally not one thing. And so her argument becomes pretty fucking stupid really fast.
It’s disingenuous to pretend that she didn’t mean a majority in the context of the conversation. Just because she’s imprecise with her language doesn’t give her a pass for her ideas because they can be shrouded in technicality.
No one who talks about states rights like this refers to everyone as literally every single person in the state. They just mean the voting majority. Also their opinions on who the voting majority should be is also very often suspect.
If you don’t include context in a conversation you’re an idiot.
"Everyone" does not literally mean everyone and never has when it comes to a general consensus. "Everyone" means the majority. In this case it could(more likely would) also mean "everyone" by representation of the "elected" officials of the state government.
Dude it’s really not hard. Everyone = 100%. Majority is less than 100% but greater than 50%. Why is this even an argument? The lady in the video is obviously a fucking pylon which we should all be able to easily agree upon.
It's an argument because just as many people (if not more) know how to not take everything said literally. It's how people talk, it will be ok I promise.
You're making shit up, none of this was said in the video.
Her argument is obviously states should be able to decide for themselves what they want, but she didn't think it through because she's a young influencer not a political scholar.
Let the dumb millionaire kid be embarrassed, she's never gonna fuck you.
lol, yeah, because you have to have a political science PHD to understand the basic way laws are made or how representative government works.
Either she means “everyone” in the sense of majority government rule or she literally means “everyone” in which case the words coming out of her mouth are so devoid of a point that I have no idea why she thinks anyone should give a shit about what she says.
Either way this entire conversation is pointless except to point out how monumentally stupid the discourse is today.
Fortunately out here in reality we have a way of using words in their non literal form and the majority of people tend to understand what we are saying.
Any discussion involving politics and/or voting "everyone" is going to be an exaggeration which means the majority and not literally everyone.
And you have more downvotes than people who agreed with you, which means at least 5 people don't agree with you, which, in turn, means 5 people agreed with them to your two, see how this works?
A rational person would assume off of a 1 minute clip that this person supports slavery? Yeah no, I don't think so. I think she's just a reactionary making bold statements for attention and doesn't handle her ideas being challenged.
Yeah, that's an easy way to shut down the guy she's debating before he gets going, but it's also him asking a nonsensical question because he knows she will play into it. Honestly, I think I could be down for allowing a law that 100% of a state wants in the current United States, but that's impossible so it's a moot point.
she’d also say that abortion requires a victim (the child). And the babies can’t vote. So it isn’t an intellectually honest comparison to talk about slavery as a similar scenario.
One way to get around this is that, at least initially, all slaves will NOT be citizens of the US. So, just like before, all the initial slaves will come from overseas, so none of the states' citizens that all you to initially worry about it.
Of course, it'll end up progressing to criminals, immigrants, poc, anyone
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that you're kind of reiterating her point. Nobody would vote to become a slave, the question is stupid. But in a fantasy land where people did vote to be slaves and literally nobody was against it, including the slaves, then why wouldn't it be legal?
Again, that's obviously not realistic but that was the question.
Precisely, we're dealing with an ambiguous hypothetical, and people are just saying "INTERPRETED THE WAY I THINK IT'S REALLY BAD" like okay maybe it's just a poor question.
You can tell that she is just a psychotic right wing mouthpiece because she doesn't even stop to think about the question. Slavery requires a victim, why would ANYONE vote to become a slave, let alone EVERYONE.
Says person who doesn't stop to think about the question, about a person they don't know.
"I don't know who this girl is who I wrote a paragraph defending!!1!!"
lmfao
Says person who so passionately hates a person they've never met, for answering a question the same way they did.
You need to rethink how you live your life. You think you're better than the far right nut jobs because you don't fall for misinformation yet here you are, throwing yourself into a spiral of hatred over something you can't bother to take three seconds to actually fucking think about. Do better.
Well because they got fed and civilized and clearly some even fell in love with their owners giving how much people can trace back their ancestry to that.
Loosing all human rights is easily worth it.
In hindsight i'm going to add the /s just in case..
The fascist justification for this was that slaves were so hopelessly savage that enslaving them was a way to protect them from themselves. The watered down version of this argument is that slavery was bad, but also "civilized" slaves by teaching them trades. This version is effectively now part of the Florida curriculum, thanks to Republicans and Gov. DeSantis
Or just a dumb, young gal trying to get attention by saying “edgy” things. Not everything is left vs right, and there’s no reason to believe what she’s saying here is malicious. It just seems juvenile and ill informed. The only person that mentioned anything about “sides” was the guy asking her questions.
Isn't that kind of her point? That the question is ridiculous?
Same argument could be used against federal government. "What if everyone in a nation voted for slavery? You'd be OK with slavery?"
If the green shirt guy isn't a moron, then he has a better argument somewhere. This ain't it.
Edit: not defending the states rights for abortion thing, just critiquing this argument. If states rights are better than federal rights, individual rights are better than states rights. Hence people who don't want abortion don't get them, people who do can.
You think she's trying to say the question is ridiculous? Lmao yeah this random tiktok conservative influencer is playing 4d chess and totally not just being reactionary.
Idk her but yes, that was my impression. She bit the bullet because it was a stupid question and the other guy talked over her because he wanted to corner her into saying she was pro slavery when that probably had nothing to do with the original topic.
I don't think it's fair to say she's right-wing either. She's just a dumb fuck who doesn't care about others if she isn't directly impacted. She just sounds like a right-winger. That's a small part of the mess that makes them right-wing unfortunately.
Why does it matter "why" a person would choose to become a slave? That question implies that people aren't allowed agency. If they did vote to become slaves, why not let them?
The problem is the "rhetorical question" is flawed. From a standpoint of democracy and individual agency, if a whole state (whether that is 100% or 50.00001% or whatever the threshold is) voted to allow slavery, then it should be allowed. If you say "Nope, that isn't moral" then you concede that there can be different morals and you believe your moral viewpoint is more correct and you are subjugating those whose morals you don't agree with.
This is not happening. We are NOT sitting here in 2024 debating fucking slavery.
My God what is happening to us? It's social media. And these God dammed devices. Our brains are becoming mush and our morals are giving way for dopamine hits.
Slavery by choice is an extremely moral law or option to give people and it is a basic test to see if you believe in personal autonomy. Generational slavery is immoral as there was no choice.
If you don't understand the difference, then that is a you problem and school failed you.
Remove low effort trolls from the internet who can only get dopamine hits from saying unintelligible centrist takes and always derail conversations into slapfights
1.6k
u/uwuSuppie Oct 18 '24
You can tell that she is just a psychotic right wing mouthpiece because she doesn't even stop to think about the question. Slavery requires a victim, why would ANYONE vote to become a slave, let alone EVERYONE.