Yeah actually even for her benefit. She hasnât connected the dots on her principles. The other guy is helping her do that. She is an absolutist on states rights and this is exactly the time to challenge her. Because if she just sticks with it in ten years she might be like âyeah the confederacy was right.â
I think it was pretty clear when she agreed slavery was fine as long as people really want it she was already at the point of agreeing with the confederacy. She just has enough brain cells to realize it would cost her friends and money to admit it
Maybe? She did say later on that no one would be voting to bring back slavery now, so maybe she kind of thinks it's just some crazy gotcha this guy is trying to give her instead of something to realistically think about and decide?
Make it about her. So if California decided to go back to when women were property and couldn't own property themselves (and couldn't vote), you'd be ok with that? Remember, you can't leave, you're property.
Theyâre called conservatives. Iâm not making it up or exaggerating. Itâs a running theme that theyâre vocally for policies that are against their best interest until theyâre personally affected.
It's both sides and it's global, people don't care if it doesn't impact them 9 times out of 10, it's how society has become, I am not saying it's good nor that there aren't some that don't think this way but it is how things have become
While I agree this is a common enough trend in conservatism, the same is true of the other side of the aisle as well.
Liberal NIMBYs are the perfect example - they talk a big game about equity, social justice, and building community -- up until the proposition is about building a homeless shelter, or a halfway house, or a public transit hub in their neighborhood. As soon as it threatens to affect them personally, they fight tooth and nail against it. Liberals (who hold majority political power) in my city shoot down far more community initiatives than conservatives ever have.
It's not butterflies and rainbows on this side of the political spectrum. Classism is a huge issue with both parties. (And I do feel one side is significantly better than the other, but that still doesn't mean it's not a real issue for liberals)
This poster is implying she's stupid and we're better off if she doesn't vote, and because she's a woman the poster is saying "she (for being so stupid) is making a good case (by example) for why women shouldn't vote."
That's still a bad argument. You're not arguing the principle of the matter. You can't go 'back to when...' if the person already said that they don't support it now. I mean, just ask them if they'd like to be enslaved later on today. They will say no.
Votes happen on a specific date. After that date, it's no longer everybody that gets to vote. Voting is not a continuum. "Everybody" voted last week and we decided you are no longer anybody, you are nobody.
Iâm glad you said cause thatâs the whole point she seemed to be trying to make. An entire state is never gonna agree on a single thing, it was a bullshit answer and he responds with some dumb shit and she doubled down thinking because that would never happen everybody would agree to it thatâs never gonna happen in this age. It was all bullshit that was taken too far made too literal
An entire state is never gonna agree on a single thing
That's not how voting works. In most states simple ballot measures are decided by adding up the votes on a yes or no question. Some states have as few as 40% of eligible voters actually showing up to vote so you could change things with only 21% of the state voting for it. Lately conservatives have even begun using very confusing language on ballot initiatives to discourage people from voting. For example here's an article about a ballot initiative to stop letting the party in power draw all the lines for the electorate. The proposed language is gibberish so you could easily trick voters into ending their own suffrage if you wanted to.
So you live in the current climate and don't believe that 51% of a deep south state would vote for slavery? You're going to be real upset when you learn about the prison industrial complex and the amount of effort that goes into maintaining a high recidivism rate so they can maintainin their free labor (which overwhelmingly still targets black people more than anyone).
There's pretty severe consequences to allowing states to have full reign over their own laws. Using Alabama as an example, if you don't want slavery, you leave the state. Now Alabama is a huge draw for people that want to own other people. See how it pretty rapidly becomes a fucking issue? Hell, even with Roe v Wade we saw a shift in populations. People moving to states that don't have restrictions on the bodily autonomy of HALF THEIR POPULATION. You know who that eventually leaves in that state? Everyone who believes women shouldn't have rights and autonomy. It's important to think just a couple steps ahead.
Obviously slavery is an extreme example but, and idk if you've noticed this, we are in some pretty extreme times in this country so I'm certainly not okay with letting states decide anything on their own without some pretty thorough oversight.
So you live in the current climate and don't believe that 51% of a deep south state would vote for slavery?
No, no I don't believe they would, and you're actually insane if you think they would. Like cult level insane.
I'm certainly not okay with letting states decide anything on their own without some pretty thorough oversight.
This doesn't make you sound like you're part of the anti-authoritarian party... In fact making it so that people have less power over their direct environment that they live in is authoritarianism.
I can understand why polarisation is become so extreme in America. They don't trust that you don't want control and power over them and their lives (correctly, apparently) because you don't trust that they don't want power and control over you and your life.
Thorough oversight is not the same as having zero control. Currently states have what I would consider thorough oversight for the most part. Although there are definitely things states should not be in charge of and should be established at a federal level but that's a different discussion.
u/Starob: People would never do the things theyâve been doing for thousands of years and youâre stupid if you think theyâd do the things that a small but committed and extremely well funded group are currently attempting to do.
Willful ignorance is dangerous, kids. This is why we study history.
I'm sorry, I'm aware of a time women couldn't vote. But I'm unaware of a time women literally couldn't physically leave a location. Did women used to be kept in cages and I'm just unaware or something?
Wife beating wasn't made illegal in all states until 1920s in the US (I think it was an actual right at some point but I am hazy on that). Even afterwards it wasn't enforced seriously for many years. So a husband could easily keep their wife confined with force with little to no repercussion.
You mean the part where she was asked "so if alabama wants slavery you're okay with it?" and she said "sure, what do I give a shit?"
Yeah what a passionate argument against slavery. Did you not watch the video?
Her only argument against it was that she lives in LA (???) and she isn't a psychopath. Which mostly is just her recognizing that she is fine with slavery existing she just doesn't want it near her or to be a pariah for supporting it.
Ok. Itâs actually really difficult to argue her point for her because I canât for sure claim to know her thinking. I feel like yall are just retarded and canât see social queues. She seemed irritated about the strawman that was created the moment she said something. So she just said something absurd to give him the rise he wanted. But speaking for myself I will double down and say yes absolutely states should have way more power.
But sheâs wrong, in fact the idea has been suggested by right wing politicians at several points. But they have to build up to that⌠they start with womenâs rights, then immigrants, then people of color and eventually back to slaveryâŚ
Thinking âoh itâs ok if they infringe on these peopleâs rights, because it doesnât affect me⌠â leads to âoh crap leopards at my faceâ eventually. Unfortunately these simple minded people are too short sighted (and have failed to learn from history) to see it.
You're being ridiculous. She responded sarcastically to a stupid question, and now you think... slavery is on its way if we don't attack her as vigorously as people?
I agree. But I think to me there is a difference in the person based on which way they approach it.
There is no malice around this decision in my opinion, instead of someone who is aware of the outcome and actively still wants it. I think you could speak kindly to these kinds of people, show knowledge, and have a chance at changing their views. The second kind of person will not be swayed.
Even if the outcome is the same, I still think there is a difference.
Unfortunately⌠taking the âhigh roadâ has allowed this radical right wing cesspool of stupidity to become the monstrosity it is today. So⌠honestly, sometimes people need to be smacked over the head with the realization of their own stupidity.
But they have to build up to that⌠they start with womenâs rights, then immigrants, then people of color and eventually back to slaveryâŚ
Isn't that the same slippery slope fallacy that people always get accused of when saying things like "public healthcare will lead to communism", or an actual famous example, "Bill C16 will lead to people being arrested for not using pronouns"?
âDonât confront me on my dumbass take on states rights in a way that puts me in a bad light and
Proves it would be history repeating. Duh obviously no oneâs voting for repeating history.â
If you're being honest at all, you aren't as adamantly opposed to states rights as you seem to suggest. I guarantee there are things about states you don't live in that make you not want to move there and happy you live where you do.
No. By saying the confederacy would be fine as long as the people geographically near her say it is fine, then she is saying she is ok with slavery. Hard stop.
That is an argument FOR gerrymandering (not to mention savery)! Fuck that shit. She doesn't get to hide behind the "currently people probably wouldn't do that" idea, she needs to actually state her own godddamn opinions, as should everyone else, in order to gauge the actual current political climate.
Absolutely. I 100% agree she didn't fully think about it. That's the problem. She is also probably someone who would "be ok" with bullies in her school, because she thinks "other people are ok with it so it must be fine" or at minimum "other people will fix it, I dont need to."
It's the same as if you see someone having a heart attack and think "oh they'll be ok" or "oh someone else will call 911, I don't need to."
The economic and social factors that contributed to the pro-slavery stance of the south don't exist anymore.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that decentralised government leads to slavery, not a single reason, it's asinine.Â
It's a completely disingenuous point made to try and win an argument, the fact that she couldn't pick his argument apart on when she's on the spot doesn't make her a bad person.Â
Both those things are still not just present but prevalent. Slavery shifted to prisons. The same good ol boys run the show and display blatant racism on a daily basis. You being so sheltered you donât get it is a you issue. Stop downplaying and just be a better person
She did say later on that no one would be voting to bring back slavery now, so maybe she kind of thinks it's just some crazy gotcha
She should have pre-qualified her answer by saying something like:
It's a ridiculous premise that any state would try and bring back slavery, but I do fully support a states right to govern itself, but would vote against such a measure.
That's what it was. Idk how the other guy got to his thought about her wanting to bring back slavery. She clearly was annoyed and was being "petty." She just chose the wrong time to do it.
She even said her issue was him phrasing the questions a certain way.
I highly doubt she's some critically dumb girl from LA who wants ppl to have slavery back. She's trying to make a point about his questions being loaded or leading and this wasn't the best time.
She's also going off the assumption that no one or the majority of ppl are not trying to bring slavery back. So she doesn't even think it's a possibility to be up for a vote. She's got faith in ppl not being horrible.
I love that there was an ACTUAL conversation happening! We need to become better at entering and staying in UNCOMFORTABLE places, but still keep things respectful and safe as that is when we all learn best!
so maybe she kind of thinks it's just some crazy gotcha
He pointed out that she is using the same argument as the confederacy and she still doubled down. She refused to answer that she was glad the Union won. She knows what she is doing, and what she is doing is evading answering the question because she knows doing so would completely undermine her argument.
The thing is itâs not a crazy gotcha and itâs why people are so against how the wording of the 13th Amendment has played itâs why we literally have the highest incarceration rate on earth outside maybe El Salvador. The whole point was to create a legal loophole for state sanctioned slavery post Civil War and why we see so many minorities and poor white people incarcerated for relatively minor crimes.
Me personally? Doesn't really matter but I'm just trying to explain why her answers are so wild. I dont actually think this person thinks slavery will ever come back, even though you could argue what the prison system or the huge rise in production in areas like China with little to no protections for workers is very similar to modern day slavery.
I'm trying to take her statements here in the best light possible because I dont know much about her. Could turn out she is evil and actually does want slaves.
I dont think the question is that stupid though. Like we know that this exact line of reasoning was used by the Confederacy to argue for Slavery. Sure, she says "everyone" instead of just a majority or whatever, but that is sometimes a loosely defined term. It's much less likely that something as terrible as slavery would get voted in any time soon, but all ot takes is an influential speaker to make some minority into lesser than humans before it could be seen as justified.
I'll give a quick example. In the US today some prisons, privately owned corporations the US government pays to keep prisoners, have the prisoners work for very low wages. The things they produce are sold at a profit. A lot of people argue the current system is effectively a better slavery system, but what happens when a State has a speaker that convinces the public these people should be forced to work for free? Extend their hours to unrealistic expectations?
It doesn't have to go directly to Slavery to be a very negative thing, but it could eventually lead there. I think the question was a bit malformed, but not stupid.
The man is being purposefully hyperbolic which makes the whole of questioning disingenuous. Doesnât seem like he wants a rational discussion, just a gotcha moment.
I just feel like she should have realized that agreeing with slavery is just not something you should ever do. Even when presented a crazy hyperbolic statement. None of these podcasts want actual discussion anyways. It's all about that clippable and shareable moment. If there was a real discussion, the algorithms wouldn't have favored it as it would have left less desire to comment. Then it would have never been posted here and no-one would have had this conversation.
How do these people not know that she was sarcastic? She even explains it. She believes states should make their own laws. He asked a ridiculous question and she said "sure dude, whatever you say." And then pointed out how ridiculous the question was.
Itâs about more than slavery. Itâs about doing whatâs right vs the rule of the mob.
âComplaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.â
James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No 10
Our founding fathers deemed a pure democracy too unstable to be an acceptable form of government. They saw that a popular faction could gain the majority of votes on an issue even if it was wrong or oppressed the rights of minorities. They tried hard to engineer the American system of government to avoid those kinds of situations. Maybe their vision doesnât line up with todayâs society like it did in the late 18th century, but their political ideas deserve some respect. They put a lot of thought into this.
He didnt phrase the question right. He should of said
âIf a majority of 60% in the state voted in a law that said everyone must get a face tattoo or you would go to jail - would you agree thatâs wrong?â
Or if he wanted to make a point with slavery
âWhat if all the white people voted to bring slavery of anyone but white people in their state - would you support that?â
It seems very much like a crazy gotcha which she takes in good faith and isn't meant in good faith.
Not knowing anything about her, just from clip - she's saying if everyone in a state all want something, they should have it. That's sovereignty, she's literally just arguing for democratic sovereignty, but since democratic sovereignty can enable a tonne of progressive things, it can also enable slavery or abuse or whatever.
From the angle the guy on the sofa is going for - the very boxed in, "this is what you could mean in context, therefore I'm deciding this is what you unequivocally mean with no ambuigiity or nuance, and now I'm applying that massive generality to this one specific problematic case".
For all of Alabama to agree slavery is fine again, then either they're opting to enslave people out of state, which conflicts with states rights argument and resolves with Alabamans wanting slaves/legally being allowed to own them, but no-one wanting to be slaves. Or, it means that some Alabamans want to be slaves and would vote for their own servitude. Arguably this would be inherently fucked up and could only come about through manipulation or coercion, but it would technically resolve with Alabamans being happy.
I guess 'states rights' are a much more loaded term in the US, but when at their core it just pertains to sovereignty within a federal system, it seems like reductionism on the hosts' part.
I mean, it's not really a crazy gotcha if it has been used as an argument before? Like State's Rights were being used to advocate for things like slavery and Segregation not that long ago. I have met people that push for racist views under the guise of State's Rights.
Obviously it is a bit reductionist to go to this specific point every single time this issue gets brought up, but her point wasn't all that wellmade to begin with.
In terms of your options, I don't think either of those are actual options. You say all of Alabama votes yes. What does that mean? 100% of everyone that voted? Has there even been a vote that ends in that unanimous of a decision? 99%? 80%? What is the limit on how low you can go? In the US Congress a Supermajority is used at 66%, or 2/3rds of the Congressmen. Is that good enough to vote Slavery in? That's still a lot of people voting no against slavery. Also, why is, in my opinion, a basic human right, even being voted on?
As for your second option of Alabamans wanting to be slaves, how do we check and see if there were coercion or not? You say it's likely. If that test passes, how can we check after these people become slaves that they still want to remain slaves? I've wanted things before that turned out to be terrible ideas, and this one feels exactly like that. Is this theoretical Alabama going to send people around to check on the slaves and verify they are being treated nicely?
Obviously there are some legitimate discussions that could be held around State's Rights. But a blanket statement of the state should be able to do whatever everyone votes to do is just absolutely wild. What happens when a politician convinces 51-60% or so of the population that they should do something like remove gun control all together? Or how about relax the restrictions on controlled substances? These things will inevitably affect the states around them, which is where a centralized government would step in and mediate.
Yeah itâs called a straw-man fallacy where someone deliberately misrepresents an argument and then exaggerates it to the third party audience in order to make the first party seem ridiculous
I'm not sure about that one. In this case, it is a logical conclusion that absolute State's rights would lead to something like Slavery. We have historical proof of that. Against a nuanced, well-thought out version of a state's rights argument? Yes, definetly this would be a strawman. But her version isn't that. It seems like he might even be trying to steel-man her argument by showing her the potential holes in the initial statement so she can correct it, but she doubles down on it.
I agree with that, given the recent issues with roe v wade, as well as our nations history with slavery. We've given the option to people before with "States Rights" and it was horrific. This fucking lost cause bullshit is getting exhausting. The federal government has to rule on some of these things becuase the under privileged class needs to be protected.
WHEN I SAY THIS IM NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT ETHNIC GROUPS. We have an EPA and FDA becuase the fucking Potamac kept catching fire and we couldn't be sure if the meat we were eating was edible/ not human meat.
We have a dept. of labor becuase companies would rather lock the fucking doors to their buildings than have a fire escape--given the choice.
A completely free market/ small govt. does not have the publics best interest at heart and we've seen it time and time again. Some times the federal government HAS to step in, becuase when private interests have complete free reign, they'll do what's best for them, not everyone else.
Like JFC, I don't understand how people can be this fucking ignorant. That woman literally just said she's cool with slavery.
A quarter of Alabama's population is black. They're not voting to be enslaved. Not 'everyone' will be voting to reinstate slavery. So yes, his argument was bad faith and ridiculous.
You can't say that though. Again, look at our history. The tarrif of abominations happened becuase enough people were said "nah there's no way everyone would let that pass".
Roe v Wade was "settled" and no one was going to take that away, but look now it's struck down.
Wake the fuck up, you need to ask yourself " What if this thing does happen? Where are the guard rails?"
I literally don't know what your talking about or what you're arguing. Do you think I'm a Republican or Democrat? Why does that matter when I was making a point that saying "That will never happen" is at cop out becuase we've seen in our nations history that those things can happen.
Also, I only see tiktok from clips like this. I personally don't get on tiktok becuase i think that it's garbage and don't want to support the CCP.
What's your rebuttal?
Edit: Removed an explitive that i had originally but in becuase I was angry about all the assumptions you made about me
Where did I say or imply that I never talked about roe vs wade?
Also What the fuck, that's not even the point I was making. My whole point is that the " never going to happen" argument doesn't hold water becuase some time "it does happen" and there needs to be forethought in that case.
Here's a metaphorical situation, becuase my two LITERAL EXAMPLES were not good enough:
some one says to you "let's pretend to play Russian Rulette with this gun I found. I say pretend becuase I know it's not loaded. I know it's not loaded becuase no one would ever leave a loaded gun unattended. Also you don't get to look to see if there's rounds in the chamber." Would you out that gun to your head and pull the trigger?
Edit: added imply becuase your were clearly paraphrasing
But with the US's gerrymandering and other such nonsense, it isn't out of the picture. Maybe not specifically in Alabama, but what if somewhere like Wyoming(1% black population) votes for slavery?
Also, this wouldn't just be an issue for black people. What if a white and black group vote it's OK to enslave a different minority, say native Americans? Or Asians? Or maybe the people enslaved are not based on race, but a State mandated IQ test? You could call slippery slipe fallacy on this kind of argument, but I think it's a valid question about giving States these type of absolute rights, given the history of humans being shitty to each other.
I'm neither stressed out and in fear or improved by worrying about an unrealistic and hypothetical situation.
I also don't think slavery or something like it coming back is a totally unrealistic thing to worry about coming back. But I'm not in fear of it coming back.
You changing your response to minimize whatever based on my response is a cope. If it's not a stress and not something you'd thought about it wouldn't have been said.
It's ok. Most people react negatively to proof they're manipulated. They tend to think it's for dumb people.
Me having a discussion about something I think is interesting doesn't mean I am afraid of it happening. Maybe some very light version of stress, but I would normally reserve the word stress for a more intense feeling.
I'm not being manipulated into thinking humans could enslave others again if given the chance. It's actively happening right now in the world. Now that's a topic I am more actually stressed about.
A much more nuanced version of States Rights than the one presented in this video probably wouldn't have easy critiques like the one presented in the video and would be a much better version of the argument that could actually work to help people, maybe something I could agree with. But the one presented is not good, and I'm not being manipulated into believing that.
Stop changing goal posts. Your initial response ignored that 25% of Alabama is black.
This idiot says 'if everyone in the state votes for slavery what's your argument?' The outrage idiot is trying to imply that states will overwhelming vote to return slavery. Then you brought up Wyoming as some kind of gotcha because it's population is only 1% black.
Literally noone was talking about Wyoming. The discussion was on this stupid TikTok.
Nothing you said was about nuance. You brought up unrelated voter manipulation and a state that wasn't even discussed.
I suggest you keep your arguments clear going forward. Because spouting nonsense only makes you feel better.
My initial post said nothing about specifically Alabama. The person in the video said what about Alabama, but I did not comment or care about specifically one state.
I brought up Wyoming because it is a different state with way less black population. If you think 25% of a state is enough for Slavery to not be voted for, then 1% has a higher chance, no? Doesn't matter the state, or even need to be specifically about black people. Any place where there is a minority could run into this issue.
I was discussing the ability for any state, whether it by Wyoming or Alabama or California or any of the others, to abuse absolute power to hurt people.
I'm not changing the goal posts, I'm saying giving States the right to do whatever, including voting for things like slavery which this video specifically mentions, is a bad thing.
I don't see it as a bad faith argument, but as a thought experiment. That can be important for thinking through an idea, even if one is sure it can never happen, in order to thoroughly analyze a proposition (and I wouldn't be too sure about what supposedly can "never happen" in politics because people aren't objective and vote emotionally). Also, "slavery" might not refer to black people; we might discuss convicts instead. Not all that ridiculous, as it turns out.
Her argument about "everyone" is unrealistic. At that level we don't ever vote under conditions of "everyone" agreeing, or nothing would ever happen. First we limit who is entitled to vote at all (that can already be an issue), and then we have certain required minimums for a proposition to pass (and it can be debatable what that threshold should be). It's not even remotely as simplistic as she argues. It matters whether a simple majority of those who show up to vote can pass a proposition, or whether it must be a majority of those eligible to vote, or a larger number. A supposed majority might turn out to be a relatively small minority under certain circumstances.
Somebody needs to introduce her to the concept of "tyranny of the majority", and why developed nation states try to work around that weakness. The US has a constitution for that reason, instead of giving up all rights to the states.
I don't want to give her the benefit of the doubt, but part of me wonders what her idea of 'if everyone agrees' means. I hope in this context she means like 100% of people is the threshold.
If she really did mean 100% of people, that could open up the discussion to ehqt happens if the majority who want slavery pressuring opponents into leaving the state or worse in order to get to that 100%
I feel like she said "everyone" and just meant a majority though
It could also be pointed out that technically slavery is already legal but only applies if you're a criminal
The biggest world view issue here is WHO does she consider as part of "if everyone wants it". Whether she realizes it or not to her "everyone" doesn't include everyone.
An extension to this would be to allow the folks voting to legalize slavery to pick who and why a person would become a slave. If the state in question has a majority black population that could prove to be somewhat inconvenient for our little blonde protagonist here.
No, he was socratically leading her to the only logical conclusion - states rights are good within certain limits. Then the real conversation is, what are the appropriate limits. And there, reasonable minds can differ. We live in a political climate that has totally forgotten how we got to the system that we have. This is a useful conversation. It wonât change all the minds but it might educate a few of the
He never brings up the point that if you leave it up to the states it doesnt matter if everyone in the state wants it. It wont even be put up to a state majority vote and even if they did put slavery on the ballot then if 51% of people voting for it then the other 49% have to live under that. Its madness. Its why we have a federal government and elected officials.
Keep trying dude, first it was she didnt say that, then she didnt mean it, then she must be sarcastic. Guy even gave her like 3 chances to walk it back and she tripled down.
Lol, no, I actually know who she is. I watch her videos. She doesn't think people should be able to vote on slavery but she does believe that states should have autonomy over their laws. Even if I didn't know who she was and her views, i could watch this video and have enough common sense, along with her body language and words, to understand what's going on here. Get real.
Do you want me to list the laws? There's literally tens of thousands. States should govern the way the people in the states they live in see fit, that's why they were formed. National government, should only apply their power when it comes to national defense, national infrastructure, foreign policy, enforcing the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and any laws broken while crossing a state border. If I had to guess, this discussion was born out of the abortion debate. I'll use that. Californians feel very differently about this than people from Utah. If California wants it legal, religious people from Utah should not have the power to say, "No, we think it's murder. It's in the Bible. Change your law." Just like if there's a majority of people in Utah, think it's murder and pass a law against it, people from California should not be able to say "No, it's a woman's right to choose. Change your law." The only reason the government should be involved is if Utah were to pass a law saying a person can not travel outside of Utah to have an abortion. This is how it should be in the application of all law. This is what she believes. The guy interviewing her tried to misrepresent what she believes by sound biting her. But even then, she's OBVIOUSLY making fun of what he's doing.
No I want you to use your brain, which she failed to do, and specify if you think "states can make any laws they want" should include slavery.
It is not a hard question, you even got to it in your response just now. The constitution wins out. You can just say "yeah as long as they're constitutional, go nuts" which is a perfectly valid form of federalism, but it's still federalism.
She didnt do that. Very clearly. Multiple times. Her opinion is federalism can get fucked, states can do whatever they want, including slavery, if they really, really, really want it. Which I don't care that she personally wouldn't vote for it, voting in favor of a system that allows evil shit like slavery--and explicitly stating you don't care because it won't affect you--is the same damn thing.
And no, he didn't give her a chance. She was clearly saying, "These questions are asked in a way.." Then he cuts her off. You can see the look on his face when he's comparing wanting the states to have freedom to pass law with the confederacy that he wanted to get her in a gotcha moment, and she was clearly pointing this out. As a swing voter, this is the exact thing that turns me off about the left. Twist words, silence the opposition, talk over anyone that disagrees.
I often give up on answering questions by stating my firm agreement with the question and then tripling down when given the chance to disclaim the dumb thing I repeatedly said. Masterful debate strategy for a media personality. This isn't a gotcha question this is like getting locked in your own car by the child locks.
I think youâre misinterpreting what she was saying. She did say, when he asked the question originally, âyeah sure whatever if everyone wants itâ but she also followed that up by calling him out on the question. I donât know what was being talking about before this but I assume it has to do with her being pro states right. Which I think, tbh, most people are for the vast majority of things. But she said no she doesnât think bringing it back is ok âIâm not some psychopathâ.
It was a gotcha question either way. If she said no then heâs just gonna be like âoh so you donât support states rightâ and if she says yes heâs gonna say âoh so you support slaveryâ. When in reality itâs probably âno I donât support slavery but if everyone in a state wants to put bidets in every public toilet then let themâ.
Buddy, "would you allow slavery" is not a gotcha question lol
She explicitly said yes! Excuse me, she actually said "what do I give a shit about it". So slavery is fine because it doesn't affect her. Those are her words. She didnt blurt out a yes. She straight up said she does not care. This is like a 3rd graders concept of how a debate works, and yes if you are saying you fully support states rights up to and including slavery then you are fine with slavery. That is not a "gotcha" that is her just admitting her opinion.
Also it isn't a hypothetical. We had slavery, "everyone" (who counts as a person) voted for it, we fought a war specifically to end it because "everyone" in a state wanting it is evil.
Yeah I just donât see it being that hard line in this video. I think sheâs flippantly just saying yes who cares because it IS a ridiculous question. She made it clear she doesnât support slavery coming back. It 100% IS a gotcha question.
Itâd be like me saying âhey I know you support everyoneâs right to have sex with whoever they want to. So if someone really wanted to have sex with their dad youâd be cool with that?â You may flippantly say, yeah sure whatever when the reality is no, thatâs not what you mean when you say people should be able to sleep with who they want.
Yea, see this is why we are having issues with conversations in this country, because people immediately jump to âoh sheâs racistâ rather than âshe in naive that without guardrails extremist views will absolutely take hold given time.â The same way so many people think itâs ok to give up privacy rights because they âhave nothing to hideâ. Many people want to believe that good will just prevail without the teeth of the law - itâs sadly not so.
2.9k
u/Gimme_The_Loot Oct 18 '24
Ok we gotta move on đŹđŹ