Bull Ring Dante on Democrats as KKK

[Daktoria]

Dante let me know when you're here so we can start.

Moderation Note:

Please remember -- Bull Ring threads are One on One challenges. Read the rules of the forum to see how can participate or comment. DO not post in the thread unless you are one of the two challengers.

FlaCalTenn

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dante let me know when you're here so we can start.

Okay Daktoria

post something and within a day I will follow up

 

[Daktoria]

Dante

I'm going to assume we all know that the KKK is crazy and tyrannical. It isn't just a racist organization, but an organization with a history of intimidation tactics used to impose its lunacy upon others. On top of that, it has a religious background that's used to make excuses for its behavior. The question here is, "How do Democrats emulate that?"

I'm also going to assume we're talking about the modern Democratic party. We're not talking about a party system from a bygone era such as the Democrats during reconstruction or the Progressive Era. In other words, we can treat people such as Teddy Roosevelt like Democrats because he was progressive even though he was a Republican at the time.

The answer to this is pretty obvious such that if you're in the know and deny it, you're probably passive-aggressively sarcastic, but whatever. I'll indulge those who are genuinely out of the know.

The thing to understand about the KKK is it represents anti-intellectual, folk community common sense. It's a group that not only discriminates against the diversity of human nature, but is thoughtlessly irrational in its discrimination. This is comparable to the emotivist and relativist platforms used by the Democratic party today, especially when it comes to regulating free markets and avoiding retributive justice. The modern Democratic party believes that objective reason is a throwback to an obsolete era, and focuses on postmodernist deconstruction instead. It denies free will while treating humanity as if its fated by what it feels, and that those with the most compatible emotions are entitled to social status.

In fact, the KKK even shares the modern Democratic party's anti-Catholic ire due to how Catholic ideology is looked upon as objective. Keep in mind that Catholicism is a multicultural religion whether you want to talk about its international tolerance throughout Western Europe, its tolerance for pagans ever since the Councils of Frankfurt and Paderborn, or its direct tolerance for other ethnic groups altogether since the Valladolid Debate, Sublimus Dei papal bull, or the Salamanca School reform of Spanish colonization lead by people like Francisco de Vittoria and Bartolome de las Casas. In fact, when Mexico declared independence from Spain, it didn't follow the United States' precedent when declaring independence from Britain. Mexico's first constitution explicitly did not have separation of church and state. Instead, it openly made Roman Catholicism its official state religion, and along with this, illegalized slavery and recognized the legitimacy of Native American populations.

In fact, if you know anything about the Democratic party, you know its progressive platform has roots in the anti-Catholic "social gospel" and "labor forward" movements that discriminated against Irish, Polish, and Italian immigrants (and ultimately amounted in founding the Knights of Columbus to counterbalance this discrimination). This is especially because of the Democratic party's feminism which emphasizes how women aren't included in the Catholic Church's administration (despite how the Church simply followed Jesus' tradition of having no female disciples even though he wasn't sexist and understood the difference between administering society and living in society). By no surprise, many KKK members are also neocons who focus on how "Muslims treat their women". They don't care about civil rights violations in general. For example, the KKK couldn't care less about how when we invaded Iraq, we liberated the Kurds and Shias from Saddam.

What's really interesting about this anti-Catholicism is how it goes hand in hand with the fatalism originally mentioned as well. Both the KKK and Democratic party have Protestant roots whether we're talking about white nationalist pride or the social gospel. In fact, Protestantism very explicitly believes that people are either chosen by God to be elected for salvation or not by a predestined calling. You can supposedly tell whether they have this calling by how they perform sufficient good works to do so. In essence, what we see here is a strange connection between the "conform to norm/work ethic" identity of the KKK, and the historicist social engineering of Democrats. Both sides want the right to judge people by learning from facts from experience, feeling out a way to transform or maintain those facts, and comparing how people behave with their feelings.

This isn't merely an economic policy similarity though. It's also a social policy similarity. Just like how the KKK believes in abuse, negligence, and blaming victims to deal with it, modern Democrats believe in denying personal responsibility, holding people responsible for their actions, and the general ideas of punishment and discipline. Both sides believe that intervention is a part of living in society, and that society carries on through a balance of powers. Neither side cares about the legitimacy behind enforcement. They don't care about reason behind the rule of law. They just want to neglect upholding the law among those they don't like, treating those they don't like as outlaws who are obligated to endure vulnerability.

In fact, we see this similarity when it comes to their treatment of race itself.

Both the KKK and Democrats generalize race relations on a historical basis. The KKK assumes that just because many people of a race behave someway means we're entitled to assume how everyone of a race behaves. The Democratic party assumes that just because many people of a race are privileged or prejudiced against means that everyone of that race is privileged or prejudiced against.

This is especially important in light of anti-Catholicism as well. There are lots of non-privileged white Catholics out there, but both the KKK and Democratic party couldn't care less about them. Aside from Catholics though, there's no reason to assume that all whites behave similarly, or that all whites are privileged.

In fact, the following is perfectly plausible:

Say you have some privileged whites, and say these whites want to get away with it. Originally, they could be KKK supporters, but eventually, they'll realize how their position is no longer politically correct. What they end up doing is switching sides while generalizing everyone who's white as privileged. That way, they can spread the burden. Heck, they probably want to do this anyway. After all, these are people who benefited from seeming historically normal in the opinion of bigots. They don't want those who analytically challenge the legitimacy of historical normalcy to find justice in society.

In turn, those who at least care about the non-privileged, if not the non-privileged, themselves speak up. This creates a strange situation which can be exploited because these people can be framed as selfish. Maybe they look like the types who are privileged, but simply don't admit it. Maybe they just look similar to those who expect you to deal with abuse because of their belief in personal responsibility. Maybe they're meritocrats who don't believe in equality since some apply themselves to become successful and others don't, but this inequality is similar to aristocratic inequality where some people are just endowed with an estate.

In fact, modern Democrats are very deliberately emotivist, relativist, and historicist in their platform. They don't objectively analyze the nature of racist privilege or anything else for that matter. They really don't even challenge the beliefs of abuse, negligence, and blaming victims. They focus more on leveling meritocrats down than appropriately disciplining aristocratic spoiled brats. They focus more on simply disrupting the rule of law and order in general than reforming where the rule of law and order has been specifically corrupted.

The bottomline is there really is no difference between the KKK and Democrats when you really look at it.

In fact, if you want a bit of a history lesson, then look at the history of Texan independence which the KKK has always idolized. Texans declared independence from Mexico because as Protestants, they wanted to continue owning their slaves. They didn't want to have to go along with Mexico's Catholic values...

...Catholic values which the Democratic party today couldn't care less about either. It's not even really about those values belonging to the Catholic Church either. It's about how those values entail universal respect for humanity, but Democrats don't want to do that. They just want to jockey for social status by appealing to be emotionally "normal" and tell everyone else who doesn't jockey or isn't as normal that they're obligated to go along with their social programs. They discriminate just as much as the KKK did and still does.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dante

I'm going to assume we all know that the KKK is crazy and tyrannical. It isn't just a racist organization, but an organization with a history of intimidation tactics used to impose its lunacy upon others. On top of that, it has a religious background that's used to make excuses for its behavior. The question here is, "How do Democrats emulate that?"

...

The question here is, "How does the modern Democratic party (which would include Teddy Roosevelt?) emulate being crazy and tyrannical, racist, with usage of intimidation tactics being used to impose its lunacy upon others, all while using religion to make excuses for its behavior?

You believe the modern Democratic party (which would include Teddy Roosevelt?) is anti-intellectual, with a folk community common sense?

You believe the modern Democratic party (which would include Teddy Roosevelt?) is a group that not only discriminates against the diversity of human nature, but is thoughtlessly irrational in its discrimination?

You believe the modern Democratic party (which would include Teddy Roosevelt?) possesses an anti-Catholic ire due to how Catholic ideology is looked upon as objective?

Daktoria Do we have this part of your OP correct?

 

[Daktoria]

Dante

That's basically it, but don't twist my words. Make sure you read the rest of what I wrote before responding so you don't interpret what I said in a way I didn't intend.

For example, I compared anti-intellectual folk community common sense to emotivist and relativist platforms.

Anti-intellectual folk community common sense can also be interpreted as nationalist, localist, populist, traditional resistance to alternate lifestyles, but that's not what I meant. I mean it's pretty obvious that the Democratic party believes in diversity and tolerance. That's not what I was challenging.

 

[Daktoria]

Also, understand that I was using Teddy Roosevelt as an example. There are plenty of Republicans out there who had progressive platforms before because it was the party system of the time. My point wasn't to focus on him specifically.

The modern Democratic party shouldn't be judged by the Democratic parties of previous systems. It should be judged by its ideology. Heck, the KKK was founded with Democratic party associations before, but that doesn't mean those associations still apply. Anyone who knows anything knows the Democratic party dissociated from the KKK during the Civil Rights Movement.

The point I'm making here is there are deeper connections at stake that don't first meet the eye.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dante

That's basically it, but don't twist my words. Make sure you read the rest of what I wrote before responding so you don't interpret what I said in a way I didn't intend.

Interpreting what people say is what we do here. No one has twisted your words.

So when you say basically, can you follow up with an unequivocal Yes or No or explain where I err and what it is you are trying to say? The reason I replied the way I did and the way I am doing now is to get you on the record as agreeing to what I interpret your words as meaning -- -- get you to explain why what I interpret you saying is off the mark. We must be clear or else it becomes a circle jerk

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dante

That's basically it, but don't twist my words. Make sure you read the rest of what I wrote before responding so you don't interpret what I said in a way I didn't intend.

For example, I compared anti-intellectual folk community common sense to emotivist and relativist platforms.

Anti-intellectual folk community common sense can also be interpreted as nationalist, localist, populist, traditional resistance to alternate lifestyles, but that's not what I meant. I mean it's pretty obvious that the Democratic party believes in diversity and tolerance. That's not what I was challenging.

Can be interpreted? If you aren't challenging that the Democratic party believes in diversity and tolerance, what exactly are you challenging?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The point I'm making here is there are deeper connections at stake that don't first meet the eye.

you've failed to make this point or...
I've failed to see it.

can you be clearer? Or should I just run with what I think/interpret?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

In fact, modern Democrats are very deliberately emotivist, relativist, and historicist in their platform. They don't objectively analyze the nature of racist privilege or anything else for that matter. They really don't even challenge the beliefs of abuse, negligence, and blaming victims. They focus more on leveling meritocrats down than appropriately disciplining aristocratic spoiled brats. They focus more on simply disrupting the rule of law and order in general than reforming where the rule of law and order has been specifically corrupted.

The bottomline is there really is no difference between the KKK and Democrats when you really look at it.

Is this your main point Daktoria ?

 

[Daktoria]

Dante

That's basically it, but don't twist my words. Make sure you read the rest of what I wrote before responding so you don't interpret what I said in a way I didn't intend.

Interpreting what people say is what we do here. No one has twisted your words.

So when you say basically, can you follow up with an unequivocal Yes or No or explain where I err and what it is you are trying to say? The reason I replied the way I did and the way I am doing now is to get you on the record as agreeing to what I interpret your words as meaning -- -- get you to explain why what I interpret you saying is off the mark. We must be clear or else it becomes a circle jerk

You seemed uncertain about what I said, so replying that way seemed rather strange. I was expecting you to dive right in. Replying that way made it seem like you were trying to set me up.

 

[Daktoria]

Dante

That's basically it, but don't twist my words. Make sure you read the rest of what I wrote before responding so you don't interpret what I said in a way I didn't intend.

For example, I compared anti-intellectual folk community common sense to emotivist and relativist platforms.

Anti-intellectual folk community common sense can also be interpreted as nationalist, localist, populist, traditional resistance to alternate lifestyles, but that's not what I meant. I mean it's pretty obvious that the Democratic party believes in diversity and tolerance. That's not what I was challenging.

Can be interpreted? If you aren't challenging that the Democratic party believes in diversity and tolerance, what exactly are you challenging?

Again, this reply seems strange. I've already made my point in what I originally wrote. I was just giving you a guideline here on how to not interpret what I wrote.

 

[Daktoria]

The point I'm making here is there are deeper connections at stake that don't first meet the eye.

you've failed to make this point or...
I've failed to see it.

can you be clearer? Or should I just run with what I think/interpret?

In fact, modern Democrats are very deliberately emotivist, relativist, and historicist in their platform. They don't objectively analyze the nature of racist privilege or anything else for that matter. They really don't even challenge the beliefs of abuse, negligence, and blaming victims. They focus more on leveling meritocrats down than appropriately disciplining aristocratic spoiled brats. They focus more on simply disrupting the rule of law and order in general than reforming where the rule of law and order has been specifically corrupted.

The bottomline is there really is no difference between the KKK and Democrats when you really look at it.

Is this your main point Daktoria ?

Dante

Yea, you should probably just run with it, but keep in mind the guidelines I gave you. As long as you take your time and don't jump to conclusions, you should be OK.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dante

That's basically it, but don't twist my words. Make sure you read the rest of what I wrote before responding so you don't interpret what I said in a way I didn't intend.

Interpreting what people say is what we do here. No one has twisted your words.

So when you say basically, can you follow up with an unequivocal Yes or No or explain where I err and what it is you are trying to say? The reason I replied the way I did and the way I am doing now is to get you on the record as agreeing to what I interpret your words as meaning -- -- get you to explain why what I interpret you saying is off the mark. We must be clear or else it becomes a circle jerk

You seemed uncertain about what I said, so replying that way seemed rather strange. I was expecting you to dive right in. Replying that way made it seem like you were trying to set me up.

If you consider being asked to clarify or agree with an interpretation of what you've written, where does that leave us? What is there to debate if you can't take a stand for fear of in your own words being 'set up' -- or have I misread those words too?

Dante was never uncertain of what you said, what you wrote -- he was asking if he understood your words to mean what he saw them meaning. A simple yes or correction would have straightened things out and allowed us to proceed with a debate instead of this...whatever it is

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yea, you should probably just run with it, but keep in mind the guidelines I gave you. As long as you take your time and don't jump to conclusions, you should be OK.

Am I taking a class or are we to have a debate?

 

[Daktoria]

If you consider being asked to clarify or agree with an interpretation of what you've written, where does that leave us? What is there to debate if you can't take a stand for fear of in your own words being 'set up' -- or have I misread those words too?

Dante was never uncertain of what you said, what you wrote -- he was asking if he understood your words to mean what he saw them meaning. A simple yes or correction would have straightened things out and allowed us to proceed with a debate instead of this...whatever it is

You seemed confused, so I was trying to be helpful. Then, you started asking for clarification of what's already clear. It suggests a setup where you want to hear alternate wordings of the same thing just to bifurcate language after the fact and play word games.

If you want to debate, then go ahead and start.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Okay, we attempt to get back on track

Dante

I'm going to assume we all know that the KKK is crazy and tyrannical. It isn't just a racist organization, but an organization with a history of intimidation tactics used to impose its lunacy upon others. On top of that, it has a religious background that's used to make excuses for its behavior. The question here is, "How do Democrats emulate that?"

...

The question here is, "How does the modern Democratic party (which would include Teddy Roosevelt?) emulate being crazy and tyrannical, racist, with usage of intimidation tactics being used to impose its lunacy upon others, all while using religion to make excuses for its behavior?

You believe the modern Democratic party (which would include Teddy Roosevelt?) is anti-intellectual, with a folk community common sense?

You believe the modern Democratic party (which would include Teddy Roosevelt?) is a group that not only discriminates against the diversity of human nature, but is thoughtlessly irrational in its discrimination?

You believe the modern Democratic party (which would include Teddy Roosevelt?) possesses an anti-Catholic ire due to how Catholic ideology is looked upon as objective?

Daktoria Do we have this part of your OP correct?