Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 43

Thread: So You Hired A Racist. Now What?

  1. #1

    So You Hired A Racist. Now What?

    Recent events on Charlottesville are now generation a nation wide backslash against extreme right groups.

    Among other things there is the massive removal of confederated monuments, A manifestation in Seattle that was brutally disperse by the cops, and some other things... among them this is the one I consider the most interested.

    The KKK, neo-nazis and white supremacists that participated on charlottesville, and other like demonstrations are now being doxed, this is evident in their tweeter accounts, and apparently in their lives too... as they are lossing friends and posible jobs too... so... you discover your employee is a racists.. what to do now? Huffington Post have some advice:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0ed1f464c0bd9

    There’s no doubt the election of Donald Trump by the electoral college emboldened white supremacists and provided them bigger platforms upon which to spread their anti-diversity messages. Racists no longer feel confined to trolling people on Twitter and are suddenly removing their white hoods and boldly showing their faces at KKK rallies.
    Gotta say it... hard to deny it... they think they won the country back, and Trump is not in a hurry to take them out of the "error"...

    This puts businesses in a precarious situation: if you discover, online or otherwise, that one of your employees is racist — and actively engaged in promoting white supremacy — what should you do?
    I am sure firing him will not be a good enougth option... there must be somo a lot more for the Huff to say...

    Google recently fired James Damore shortly after he spent his working hours producing a 10 page anti-diversity manifesto in which he speculated that his women colleagues were biologically inferior to men. After the manifesto went viral, Google’s head of diversity Danielle Brown issued a statement acknowledging the manifesto, disputing its accuracy, and reaffirming Google’s commitment to diversity. Google CEO Sundar Pichai went out of his way to remind young girls in tech, “You belong in this industry. We need you.” And lastly, Damore was the unfortunate recipient of the dreaded pink slip, namely for violating Google’s code of conduct.
    I guess this is an example of how to fire a racist?

    Though I don't agree that pointing out the physical differences between male and female is... hate speech. It seems that in our modern times it is.

    Google did the right thing by sending a powerful message about their unwavering commitment to diversity and rejecting harmful gender stereotypes. Research shows time and time again that diversity isn’t just a nice-to-have, but a strategic imperative. Research by McKinsey tells us that 35 percent of ethnically diverse companies outperform their competitors, and diversity in the boardroom generates better and more profitable ideas. Still, there might be some white supremacists among our workplaces.
    Questionable studies, as usual... if it is so great then why forcing people to do it? Should not companies that do it proper naturally and companies that don't... perish?.. so it would have an organic marketplace result, and not an artificial intervention, forcing quotas and the so...

    If you’ve hired a racist, what should you do?
    Lest see some of that Huff wisdom:

    1. Acknowledge that you’ve hired a racist. It can be very powerful to email your workforce acknowledging that, somewhere in the hiring process, you miscalculated a person’s cultural fit for your business. If one of your employees marched alongside the KKK in Charlottesville, let your workforce know. They probably already know, and your silence would simply ring volumes. In fact, Twitter user @YesYoureRacist identified several of the speakers and protestors at Charlotteville’s white nationalist rally.
    Imagine that, you judged this person to be fine and great, maybe you are even satisfy with his performance... and now it turns out that he is a racist... gotta do something or people will think you are a racist too...

    2. Revisit your code of conduct and ensure you’ve inserted strong pro-diversity language. Beyond being a moral imperative, diversity in our workplaces is a competitive advantage. Any employee caught to have violated your code of conduct has proven themselves unfit and unwilling to live up to the values upon which you want your business to be run.
    I would like to see some examples of this "strong pro-diversity language" before I can fully understand what this is about.

    3. Resource your employee resource groups. ERGs are a great way for women, minorities, and allies to build community and proactively respond to current events. Put your money where your mouth is: Fund these ERGs to the best of your ability and empower them to make big impacts in your workplace.
    So, basically let feminism do the hiring, from now on?

    4. Assess job candidates for their “cultural fit.” Consider asking job candidates “What have you done to promote diversity and inclusion in your previous workplace?” This is a great way to weed out KKK recruits and to ensure you’re hiring folks who, like you, value D&I.
    To say the true, this sounds totally strange to me... "cultural fit"? Perhaps I should have some on my resume that talks about my diversity values and why I am a great cultural fit??? LOL

    And that question... how you even answer a question like that? Seriously... this is what I am going to start finding when looking for a job? I have not training on how to handle a question like that.

    5. Fire any employee who acts on their racial animus. If your employee marched with the KKK in Charlottesville, that could warrant their immediate dismissal from your workplace. Check with an employment attorney to see if you have grounds for firing, especially if they’ve violated your code of conduct or contributed to fostering a hostile work environment.
    And of course, fire the racist...

    In one pace I work for, there is this racist guy, and it is a lot of fun just to hear all the crazy off the wall this guy says... All the historical revisionism, and his political and economical analysis... it is fun to see him ranting the way he does... I hope they don't fire him, place will be a lot less interesting if he is not around... In the other hand, about 70% of the costumers on that business are black, hispanic and asiatic... so no a good place for having a racist going around...

    Social media is a powerful community-building tool, but it also can be useful in exposing people. Sometimes, those people just so happen to be our students or employees who espouse Nazism. The values they harbor have no place in society, let alone our payroll.
    So there it is... history goes well hand in hand with a guy that was doxed on tweeter and he have being trying to move earth and heaven to say that he is not a racist:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7891791.html

    "I AM NOT AN ANGRY RACIST!"


  2. #2
    Senior Member voidspawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,167
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    65
    It all unfolds like a deliberate and calculated plan.

    The most telling thing is the timing, the lead of corporations and media entities. The bogeyman has happily been hiding in it's cave for decades, the endless poking and attacking was to drive it out where it could be used to generate a scare to wipe out the real threat to them. That real threat being the mass of citizens who just didn't agree with them and were never going to say they did.

    Corporations are acting far ahead of public demand, the sqawking SJW twitterers can be counted and known, they know for sure how many they are crowdpleasing. But that isn't the point the moral panic is needed and repeated, exaggerated by the media so the corporations have an excuse to snatch power. In violation of our TOS... arbitrary power to censor and control, do they care what they censor and control not really as long as they can do so, and thus be immune. It's a great coup for them, they can defy government that might want to break up monopolies and give privacy rights if public pressure mounts on that. Their final risk factor is eliminated, all accountability gone.

    Why men might be angry isn't the issue, they are angry full stop and must be eliminated. Well that sounds like something to get angry about. For years I've known feminists who have praised and thanked the great queen of feminism: the angry woman, the raging feminist. Anger is a feminine friend and they know how to use it, as much as anger is a masculine enemy and it robs them of their greatest tool against adversity.

    The speed of the world amazes me, but no longer... I used to wonder how the internets amazing ability to rapidly reveal what's on peoples minds would affect the development of human society... but I don't think I'll live long enough to find out. It's blatantly clear that the internets isn't given a chance to reveal what people think about issues, it's just part of telling them what to think, what to say, and what to shut the fuck up over or get crushed.

    frog.png Meet Pepe, immanentized incarnation of Kek. A symbol co opted from a non entity cartoon, because of a smug look that nicely captured the sense of I defy your emotional and tyrannical rule over me with disrespect to you for the attempt. This frog on this post will be enough to have me hunted out from my work, livelihood and right to a voice in my community. And that is not because of the frog, as cool as it is, it's because Pepe represents something that I found wonderfully expressed on these forums by one of our most compassionate and egalitarian members:
    Quote Originally Posted by mr_e View Post
    You can only be shamed by people you view as a moral authority over you. The moment you see them for who and what they really are and renounce their authority, you are free.
    "...especially when it comes to communication, it can be observed, if it is not a negotiation it's a war."
    Quote Originally Posted by menrppl2 View Post
    Can't live with em, life is great without them.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Mifune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Mid Atlantic
    Posts
    2,115
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    59
    A petition has been shared online calling for Mr Cvjetanovic to be expelled from the university.
    A group of people thinks Mr. Cvjetanovic is ignorant, and they think that the solution, the cure for that ignorance is to make it more difficult for him to become educated?
    "...but when she goes off you, she will not just walk away, she will walk away with your fucking skin in a jar." ~~ DoctorRandomercam
    "The laws of man, they don't apply when blood gets in a woman's eye" - The Black Keys

  4. #4
    Senior Member Mifune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Mid Atlantic
    Posts
    2,115
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    59
    As a general rule, I find that calling for someone to be fired for things they do outside of the workplace to be largely unjust.

    Not that it's unjust for people to face consequences for their actions. Only that there is nothing balancing any moral scales here.

    Companies don't generally make moral judgments. If 5,000 people call someone's company and demand they be fired, that company faces a practical choice (and arguably a separate moral one). But from a practical perspective, almost no company is going to stand behind one of their employees in the face of that kind of harassment. Even if you're the single best person in your field, it may not be worth them spending an extra $30,000 fielding phone calls and letters complaining about you when the next best person is nearly as good.

    So a person gets fired, and the group lobbying against them feels vindicated. But there's no justice here. It is effectively a political lynching. There's no trial. There's no evidence. There's no "fair" procedure. It's functionally no different than a group of people who beat a man near to death because a woman claimed he was a rapist. The standard of evidence simply becomes someone's outrage. Publish a photo of you standing next to David Duke waiting for a bus, and let the internet assume you're associated. Never mind that you didn't speak to him and you didn't know who he was, someone took a photo of you standing in proximity, so you need to be scorched.

    That's not justice, it's vengeance. It's a fucking witch-hunt. And anyone who's interested in living in a just society should be opposed to it.

    Blackstone's Formulation - "It is better that 10 guilty men go free than that one innocent suffer."
    "...but when she goes off you, she will not just walk away, she will walk away with your fucking skin in a jar." ~~ DoctorRandomercam
    "The laws of man, they don't apply when blood gets in a woman's eye" - The Black Keys

  5. #5
    Senior Member mr_e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    7,495
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by voidspawn View Post
    It all unfolds like a deliberate and calculated plan.

    The most telling thing is the timing, the lead of corporations and media entities. The bogeyman has happily been hiding in it's cave for decades, the endless poking and attacking was to drive it out where it could be used to generate a scare to wipe out the real threat to them. That real threat being the mass of citizens who just didn't agree with them and were never going to say they did.

    Corporations are acting far ahead of public demand, the sqawking SJW twitterers can be counted and known, they know for sure how many they are crowdpleasing. But that isn't the point the moral panic is needed and repeated, exaggerated by the media so the corporations have an excuse to snatch power. In violation of our TOS... arbitrary power to censor and control, do they care what they censor and control not really as long as they can do so, and thus be immune. It's a great coup for them, they can defy government that might want to break up monopolies and give privacy rights if public pressure mounts on that. Their final risk factor is eliminated, all accountability gone.

    Why men might be angry isn't the issue, they are angry full stop and must be eliminated. Well that sounds like something to get angry about. For years I've known feminists who have praised and thanked the great queen of feminism: the angry woman, the raging feminist. Anger is a feminine friend and they know how to use it, as much as anger is a masculine enemy and it robs them of their greatest tool against adversity.

    The speed of the world amazes me, but no longer... I used to wonder how the internets amazing ability to rapidly reveal what's on peoples minds would affect the development of human society... but I don't think I'll live long enough to find out. It's blatantly clear that the internets isn't given a chance to reveal what people think about issues, it's just part of telling them what to think, what to say, and what to shut the fuck up over or get crushed.

    frog.png Meet Pepe, immanentized incarnation of Kek. A symbol co opted from a non entity cartoon, because of a smug look that nicely captured the sense of I defy your emotional and tyrannical rule over me with disrespect to you for the attempt. This frog on this post will be enough to have me hunted out from my work, livelihood and right to a voice in my community. And that is not because of the frog, as cool as it is, it's because Pepe represents something that I found wonderfully expressed on these forums by one of our most compassionate and egalitarian members:

    Oh it most definitely is deliberate and calculated. Anything which does not comply with approved "Liberal Think" is now going to be branded "Racist" and "White Supremacist". Which will give the various companies and groups the "cover" and "rationale" to take any action and feel "justified". It doesn't matter that someone opposes removing historical statues, for instance, on the alleged grounds that the "civil war was racist" when the fucking IRONY HERE is that:


    #1 - The Ku Klux Klan is a product and brainchild of the Southern *DEMOCRATIC* Party. Given its well-documented history that even the ultra-liberals at Wikipedia cannot erase, I have a hard time understanding how the Southern Poverty Law Center [SPLC] (or anybody else) can, with a straight face, claim that the KKK is a *RIGHT-WING* organization. Although in fairness, that was then, this is now, and I guess that perhaps I might agree that it has sort of become one as the history and politics of the South has evolved and changed up to the present day. But even with that more nuanced statement, it is still practically impossible to lay the creation and the attitudes which lay behind the creation of the Ku Klux Klan at the feet of the Republicans (who fought *HARD* against it) and the conservatives of the era. I would strongly argue to this day that the KKK is irrelevant to the Republican party and modern day conservatism and is actually a smear tactic used by the Left to both distance themselves and their own history and involvement with the KKK, and a blatant attempt to slander the conservatives and Republicans as being comprised of "Racists" and "White Supremacists".

    [History of the] Ku Klux Klan
    http://www.history.com/topics/ku-klux-klan

    "For its part, the Ku Klux Klan dedicated itself to an underground campaign of violence against Republican leaders and voters (both black and white) in an effort to reverse the policies of Radical Reconstruction and restore white supremacy in the South. "

    Wikipedia: Ku Klux Klan
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

    "Historian Eric Foner observed: "In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired restoration of white supremacy. Its purposes were political, but political in the broadest sense, for it sought to affect power relations, both public and private, throughout Southern society. It aimed to reverse the interlocking changes sweeping over the South during Reconstruction: to destroy the Republican party's infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life.[59]"


    #2 - The Republican party is the party that *OPPOSED SLAVERY*, and in fact is the party that *ABOLISHED SLAVERY*. The North was not particularly against slavery-- (though this viewpoint is far more nuanced than my simple statement indicates), it was used by Lincoln ultimately as a political expedient used to destabilize and undermine the confederate economy during the Civil War, though as a Republican, President Lincoln was himself against slavery and the ownership of slaves. Despite being "Freed", many slaves didn't know immediately know it, and as a consequence it was some time before they experienced any significant change in their lives and living conditions. Furthermore, after slavery was abolished, many of the former slaves stayed on working for their former owners as "share-croppers", albeit at extremely low wages and conditions which were hardly changed, due to their near-universal lack of education and low literacy rates. Further complications arose from the policies put forth and espoused by *DEMOCRATIC* President Andrew Johnson with respect to the conduct and manner of lifestyle for former slaves and Black Americans.

    The Failure of Reconstruction
    http://www.history.com/topics/americ...reconstruction

    "Under the administration of President Andrew Johnson in 1865 and 1866, new southern state legislatures passed restrictive “black codes” to control the labor and behavior of former slaves and other African Americans. Outrage in the North over these codes eroded support for the approach known as Presidential Reconstruction and led to the triumph of the more radical wing of the Republican Party."

    "At the outset of the Civil War, to the dismay of the more radical abolitionists in the North, President Abraham Lincoln did not make abolition of slavery a goal of the Union war effort. To do so, he feared, would drive the border slave states still loyal to the Union into the Confederacy and anger more conservative northerners. By the summer of 1862, however, the slaves themselves had pushed the issue, heading by the thousands to the Union lines as Lincoln’s troops marched through the South."

    Wikipedia: Abraham Lincoln and Slavery
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraha...ln_and_slavery

    [I]"Abraham Lincoln's position on slavery is one of the central issues in American history. Lincoln often expressed moral opposition to slavery in public and private.[1] Initially, he expected to bring about the eventual extinction of slavery by stopping its further expansion into any U.S. territory, and by proposing compensated emancipation (an offer Congress applied to Washington, D.C.) in his early presidency. Lincoln stood by the Republican Party's platform of 1860, which stated that slavery should not be allowed to expand into any more territories. He believed that the extension of slavery in new western lands would block "free labor on free soil", and he also wanted a peaceful, enduring end to slavery. As early as the 1850s, Lincoln was politically attacked as an abolitionist, but he did not consider himself one. Howard Jones says that "n the prewar period, as well as into the first months of the American Civil War itself....Lincoln believed it prudent to administer a slow death to slavery through gradual emancipation and voluntary colonization rather than to follow the abolitionist and demanding an immediate end to slavery without compensation to owners."[2] In 1863, Lincoln ordered the freedom of all slaves in the areas "in rebellion" and insisted on enforcement freeing millions of slaves, but he did not call for the immediate end of slavery everywhere in the U.S. until the proposed 13th Amendment became part of his party platform for the 1864 election.[3]"


    Wikipedia: Reconstruction Era
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Era

    "Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson both took moderate positions designed to bring the South back into the union as quickly as possible, while Radical Republicans in Congress sought stronger measures to upgrade the rights of African Americans, including the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, while curtailing the rights of former Confederates, such as through the provisions of the Wade–Davis Bill. Johnson followed a lenient policy toward ex-Confederates. Lincoln's last speeches show that he was leaning toward supporting the enfranchisement of all freedmen, whereas Johnson was opposed to this.[3]"


    #3 - Robert E Lee, the Confederate General whose statue was so unceremoniously ripped from its posts was one of the most decorated men in the history of the United States armed forces, was personally *AGAINST SUCCESSION* from the Union, was personally *AGAINST SLAVERY*, personally never owned a slave in his life, and only turned down President Abraham Lincoln's offer to lead the Union Armies of the North out of personal *LOYALTY* to his home state of Virginia. Ulysses S Grant, the man President Lincoln ultimately did select to lead the Union Army, *WAS* a SLAVE OWNER, though mostly as a matter of technicality it seems. His personal views may have been a little murky-- meaning more in the manner of "undefined" than anything particularly malicious, and appeared to view / relate to the issue of slaves and the ownership of slaves in more pragmatic terms.

    Did Ulysses S Grant Own Slaves During the Civil War?
    https://pastexplore.wordpress.com/20...the-civil-war/

    Which U.S. Presidents Owned Slaves
    http://pres-slaves.zohosites.com/
    Last edited by mr_e; 08-20-2017 at 07:46 PM.
    FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
    It's time to call it out for what it is.



    The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

    http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

  6. #6
    Senior Member mr_e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    7,495
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by voidspawn View Post
    frog.png Meet Pepe, immanentized incarnation of Kek. A symbol co opted from a non entity cartoon, because of a smug look that nicely captured the sense of I defy your emotional and tyrannical rule over me with disrespect to you for the attempt. This frog on this post will be enough to have me hunted out from my work, livelihood and right to a voice in my community. And that is not because of the frog, as cool as it is, it's because Pepe represents something that I found wonderfully expressed on these forums by one of our most compassionate and egalitarian members:

    All Hail Kekistan.
    FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
    It's time to call it out for what it is.



    The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

    http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

  7. #7
    Senior Member voidspawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,167
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by mr_e View Post
    Oh it most definitely is deliberate and calculated. Anything which does not comply with approved "Liberal Think" is now going to be branded "Racist" and "White Supremacist". Which will give the various companies and groups the "cover" and "rationale" to take any action and feel "justified". It doesn't matter that someone opposes removing historical statues, for instance, on the alleged grounds that the "civil war was racist" when the fucking IRONY HERE is that:


    #1 - The Ku Klux Klan is a product and brainchild of the Southern *DEMOCRATIC* Party. Given its well-documented history that even the ultra-liberals at Wikipedia cannot erase, I have a hard time understanding how the Southern Poverty Law Center [SPLC] (or anybody else) can, with a straight face, claim that the KKK is a *RIGHT-WING* organization. Although in fairness, that was then, this is now, and I guess that perhaps I might agree that it has sort of become one as the history and politics of the South has evolved and changed up to the present day. But even with that more nuanced statement, it is still practically impossible to lay the creation and the attitudes which lay behind the creation of the Ku Klux Klan at the feet of the Republicans (who fought *HARD* against it) and the conservatives of the era. I would strongly argue to this day that the KKK is irrelevant to the Republican party and modern day conservatism and is actually a smear tactic used by the Left to both distance themselves and their own history and involvement with the KKK, and a blatant attempt to slander the conservatives and Republicans as being comprised of "Racists" and "White Supremacists".

    [History of the] Ku Klux Klan
    http://www.history.com/topics/ku-klux-klan

    "For its part, the Ku Klux Klan dedicated itself to an underground campaign of violence against Republican leaders and voters (both black and white) in an effort to reverse the policies of Radical Reconstruction and restore white supremacy in the South. "

    Wikipedia: Ku Klux Klan
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

    "Historian Eric Foner observed: "In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired restoration of white supremacy. Its purposes were political, but political in the broadest sense, for it sought to affect power relations, both public and private, throughout Southern society. It aimed to reverse the interlocking changes sweeping over the South during Reconstruction: to destroy the Republican party's infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life.[59]"


    #2 - The Republican party is the party that *OPPOSED SLAVERY*, and in fact is the party that *ABOLISHED SLAVERY*. The North was not particularly against slavery-- (though this viewpoint is far more nuanced than my simple statement indicates), it was used by Lincoln ultimately as a political expedient used to destabilize and undermine the confederate economy during the Civil War, though as a Republican, President Lincoln was himself against slavery and the ownership of slaves. Despite being "Freed", many slaves didn't know immediately know it, and as a consequence it was some time before they experienced any significant change in their lives and living conditions. Furthermore, after slavery was abolished, many of the former slaves stayed on working for their former owners as "share-croppers", albeit at extremely low wages and conditions which were hardly changed, due to their near-universal lack of education and low literacy rates. Further complications arose from the policies put forth and espoused by *DEMOCRATIC* President Andrew Johnson with respect to the conduct and manner of lifestyle for former slaves and Black Americans.

    The Failure of Reconstruction
    http://www.history.com/topics/americ...reconstruction

    "Under the administration of President Andrew Johnson in 1865 and 1866, new southern state legislatures passed restrictive “black codes” to control the labor and behavior of former slaves and other African Americans. Outrage in the North over these codes eroded support for the approach known as Presidential Reconstruction and led to the triumph of the more radical wing of the Republican Party."

    "At the outset of the Civil War, to the dismay of the more radical abolitionists in the North, President Abraham Lincoln did not make abolition of slavery a goal of the Union war effort. To do so, he feared, would drive the border slave states still loyal to the Union into the Confederacy and anger more conservative northerners. By the summer of 1862, however, the slaves themselves had pushed the issue, heading by the thousands to the Union lines as Lincoln’s troops marched through the South."

    Wikipedia: Abraham Lincoln and Slavery
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraha...ln_and_slavery

    [I]"Abraham Lincoln's position on slavery is one of the central issues in American history. Lincoln often expressed moral opposition to slavery in public and private.[1] Initially, he expected to bring about the eventual extinction of slavery by stopping its further expansion into any U.S. territory, and by proposing compensated emancipation (an offer Congress applied to Washington, D.C.) in his early presidency. Lincoln stood by the Republican Party's platform of 1860, which stated that slavery should not be allowed to expand into any more territories. He believed that the extension of slavery in new western lands would block "free labor on free soil", and he also wanted a peaceful, enduring end to slavery. As early as the 1850s, Lincoln was politically attacked as an abolitionist, but he did not consider himself one. Howard Jones says that "n the prewar period, as well as into the first months of the American Civil War itself....Lincoln believed it prudent to administer a slow death to slavery through gradual emancipation and voluntary colonization rather than to follow the abolitionist and demanding an immediate end to slavery without compensation to owners."[2] In 1863, Lincoln ordered the freedom of all slaves in the areas "in rebellion" and insisted on enforcement freeing millions of slaves, but he did not call for the immediate end of slavery everywhere in the U.S. until the proposed 13th Amendment became part of his party platform for the 1864 election.[3]"


    Wikipedia: Reconstruction Era
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Era

    "Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson both took moderate positions designed to bring the South back into the union as quickly as possible, while Radical Republicans in Congress sought stronger measures to upgrade the rights of African Americans, including the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, while curtailing the rights of former Confederates, such as through the provisions of the Wade–Davis Bill. Johnson followed a lenient policy toward ex-Confederates. Lincoln's last speeches show that he was leaning toward supporting the enfranchisement of all freedmen, whereas Johnson was opposed to this.[3]"


    #3 - Robert E Lee, the Confederate General whose statue was so unceremoniously ripped from its posts was one of the most decorated men in the history of the United States armed forces, was personally *AGAINST SUCCESSION* from the Union, was personally *AGAINST SLAVERY*, personally never owned a slave in his life, and only turned down President Abraham Lincoln's offer to lead the Union Armies of the North out of personal *LOYALTY* to his home state of Virginia. Ulysses S Grant, the man President Lincoln ultimately did select to lead the Union Army, *WAS* a SLAVE OWNER, though mostly as a matter of technicality it seems. His personal views may have been a little murky-- meaning more in the manner of "undefined" than anything particularly malicious, and appeared to view / relate to the issue of slaves and the ownership of slaves in more pragmatic terms.

    Did Ulysses S Grant Own Slaves During the Civil War?
    https://pastexplore.wordpress.com/20...the-civil-war/

    Which U.S. Presidents Owned Slaves
    http://pres-slaves.zohosites.com/
    This is an excellent and informative post. The information about Lee really shows just how far gone from reality the mobsterrists are. I'll need to spread some rep around but gonna come back and rep this as soon as I have.
    "...especially when it comes to communication, it can be observed, if it is not a negotiation it's a war."
    Quote Originally Posted by menrppl2 View Post
    Can't live with em, life is great without them.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by voidspawn View Post
    The bogeyman has happily been hiding in it's cave for decades, the endless poking and attacking was to drive it out where it could be used to generate a scare to wipe out the real threat to them. That real threat being the mass of citizens who just didn't agree with them and were never going to say they did.
    Pht, Mary Shelley's Frankestien would be rolling in his grave(s)
    "Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one" - Charles Mackay

    And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee. - Donne

    "What we are seeing in this headless misandry is a grand display of the Tyranny of the Underdog: 'I am a wretchedly longstanding victim; therefore I own no burden of adult accountability, nor need to honor any restraint against my words and actions. In fact, all efforts to restrain me are only further proof of my oppressed condition.'
    "It is the most perfect trump-card against accountable living ever devised." - Gladden Schrock

    "What remains for most men in modern life is a world of expectation without reward, burden without honor and service without self" - Paul Elam

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by simpleman View Post
    "I AM NOT AN ANGRY RACIST!"
    No that's right...your'e a person that sees angry racists everywhere, or fascists, or bigots, or anger, or threats.

    M summed it up succinctly, with his quip about the Princess and the Pea vis SJWs

    Simpleton...yr the princess, not the pea

    :-)
    "Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one" - Charles Mackay

    And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee. - Donne

    "What we are seeing in this headless misandry is a grand display of the Tyranny of the Underdog: 'I am a wretchedly longstanding victim; therefore I own no burden of adult accountability, nor need to honor any restraint against my words and actions. In fact, all efforts to restrain me are only further proof of my oppressed condition.'
    "It is the most perfect trump-card against accountable living ever devised." - Gladden Schrock

    "What remains for most men in modern life is a world of expectation without reward, burden without honor and service without self" - Paul Elam

  10. #10
    Senior Member voidspawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,167
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by MatrixTransform View Post
    Pht, Mary Shelley's Frankestien would be rolling in his grave(s)
    Loved the story, great pathos. Never really got the moral point. But then in Mary Shelley's the Creature was a lot more sophisticated than the old flathead with bolts through his neck. He was angry at Victor for making him and rejecting him (absent father) then he wanted him to make him a woman (well that's rather sex robot logic, makes the Creature a bit of a MGTOW miss) then Victor gets cracking and really cracks making his necromatic sex robot, before flipping out about Lurch and Necrella taking over the world and sabotaging his own work. Lurch takes the hump that his threats didn't get him the obedient loving reanimated bride he wanted, so gets his own back by strangling Victor's bride (a form of eye for an eye, woman for a woman logic, or perhaps deep resentment of step mother).

    Then Victor hunts Lurch to the ends of the Earth, but dies of hypothermia cos the ends of the Earth are really really cold. Lurch gets to feel all complicated over death of his father, so decides to emulate him and see if he can freeze to death too. Thus leaving an opening for a sequel...
    Last edited by voidspawn; 08-21-2017 at 12:57 AM.
    "...especially when it comes to communication, it can be observed, if it is not a negotiation it's a war."
    Quote Originally Posted by menrppl2 View Post
    Can't live with em, life is great without them.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •