All Things Cancel Culture



Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
10,366
Reaction score
4,566
Points
113
Center-right. LOL 😂🤣😂

Yes, on economic policies which I think are the most important, he was center right. If you campare him to the rest of the world he is very right leaning.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
10,407
Reaction score
1,705
Points
113
Yes, on economic policies which I think are the most important, he was center right. If you campare him to the rest of the world he is very right leaning.
If we compare him to your communist progressive left, perhaps, but any normal comparison has him firmly in the left camp.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
10,366
Reaction score
4,566
Points
113
If we compare him to your communist progressive left, perhaps, but any normal comparison has him firmly in the left camp.

If he was in europe they would call him right wing.
 








KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
21,139
Reaction score
3,496
Points
113
Turns out, Coke’s woke employee training may be violating the 1964 Civil Rights Act, so it’s being paused.


Woke Coke has gone flat.

Coca-Cola has paused its controversial diversity plan — that included penalties on outside law firms if they failed to meet racial diversity quotas — after intense backlash.

The pause comes after the orchestrator of the plan, Coke’s former general counsel Bradley Gayton, abruptly resigned last month after less than a year on the job and as criticism of the quotas mounted.

Some questioned whether Gayton’s policies violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which says employers can’t treat people differently based on their race.

Scott Leith, a spokesman for Coke, said Gayton’s replacement, Monica Howard Douglas, is now reviewing the plan...


 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
25,672
Reaction score
6,778
Points
113
Turns out, Coke’s woke employee training may be violating the 1964 Civil Rights Act, so it’s being paused.


Woke Coke has gone flat.

Coca-Cola has paused its controversial diversity plan — that included penalties on outside law firms if they failed to meet racial diversity quotas — after intense backlash.

The pause comes after the orchestrator of the plan, Coke’s former general counsel Bradley Gayton, abruptly resigned last month after less than a year on the job and as criticism of the quotas mounted.

Some questioned whether Gayton’s policies violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which says employers can’t treat people differently based on their race.

Scott Leith, a spokesman for Coke, said Gayton’s replacement, Monica Howard Douglas, is now reviewing the plan...



Low LOW info righties hoodwinked again by fake "news".
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
57,191
Reaction score
13,153
Points
113
Turns out, Coke’s woke employee training may be violating the 1964 Civil Rights Act, so it’s being paused.


Woke Coke has gone flat.

Coca-Cola has paused its controversial diversity plan — that included penalties on outside law firms if they failed to meet racial diversity quotas — after intense backlash.

The pause comes after the orchestrator of the plan, Coke’s former general counsel Bradley Gayton, abruptly resigned last month after less than a year on the job and as criticism of the quotas mounted.

Some questioned whether Gayton’s policies violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which says employers can’t treat people differently based on their race.

Scott Leith, a spokesman for Coke, said Gayton’s replacement, Monica Howard Douglas, is now reviewing the plan...


Which Fox News show aired a story about this?
 






STPGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
880
Points
113
I bet few on this board or in the country at large could articulate the 3/5 compromise. CNN doesn’t seem to understand it either.
His take can certainly be debated. The compromise and it's intended and 'non'-intended affects can be debated. The total erasure of parts of the populations, history has brought on different historical accounts. It also highlights other things including Christian compromise, and going in another direction, the beauty of the constitution. An amendable document.

https://www.thoughtco.com/three-fif...enslaved,population had been ignored entirely.

https://www.theusconstitution.org/news/understanding-the-three-fifths-compromise/

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/slavery-in-the-colonies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Quincy_Adams_and_abolitionism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lloyd_Garrison

Also what is rarely debated is the thought of giving all humans equal treatment and abolishing slavery from the beginning. Injecting modern takes on Christianity, this could have and should have been debated. If God created everything and no one evolved, wouldn't that mean that all humans are equal? Certainly worth discussing. Certainly worth exploring why such conclusions were never reached.

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html

https://www.crf-usa.org/black-history-month/the-constitution-and-slavery

It also speaks to the odd stance of continuing to make such 'compromises'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1877

https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_events_reconstruct.html

Some of these 'compromises' have influenced inhuman acts elsewhere (Yes I know this is off topic, just adding some of the influence this has had on humanity).

https://www.cccb.org/en/multimedia/videos/jim-crow-racism-in-the-united-states/234000

https://www.history.com/news/how-the-nazis-were-inspired-by-jim-crow

**Note: Edited to add a few thoughts and links.


The included links are far from perfect or complete. Just trying to highlight that the 3/5ths compromise and several other compromises in US history are certainly worthy of debate. Justin Lafferty's 'debate' can easily debatable. As can incomplete curriculum.
 
Last edited:


Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
49,845
Reaction score
4,098
Points
113
His take can certainly be debated. The compromise and it's intended and 'non'-intended affects can be debated. The total erasure of parts of the populations, history has brought on different historical accounts. It also highlights other things including Christian compromise, and going in another direction, the beauty of the constitution.
I don’t really see how it’s debatable. Southern slave states wanted slaves counted for representation. It gave them more House of Reps and electoral votes. The north wanted them not counted at all. It was a middle ground compromise. The south would rather it not be included at all. So it wasn’t racist, and it wasn’t about blacks being 3/5s of a person. It was about weakening southern power. So he’s at least mostly correct. But we love a good racist Republican narrative.
 

STPGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
880
Points
113
I don’t really see how it’s debatable. Southern slave states wanted slaves counted for representation. It gave them more House of Reps and electoral votes. The north wanted them not counted at all. It was a middle ground compromise. The south would rather it not be included at all. So it wasn’t racist, and it wasn’t about blacks being 3/5s of a person. It was about weakening southern power. So he’s at least mostly correct. But we love a good racist Republican narrative.
What was the reason for his 'debate'?
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
49,845
Reaction score
4,098
Points
113
His take can certainly be debated. The compromise and it's intended and 'non'-intended affects can be debated. The total erasure of parts of the populations, history has brought on different historical accounts. It also highlights other things including Christian compromise, and going in another direction, the beauty of the constitution. An amendable document.

https://www.thoughtco.com/three-fifths-compromise-4588466#:~:text=Under the compromise, every enslaved,population had been ignored entirely.

https://www.theusconstitution.org/news/understanding-the-three-fifths-compromise/

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/slavery-in-the-colonies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Quincy_Adams_and_abolitionism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lloyd_Garrison

Also what is rarely debated is the thought of giving all humans equal treatment and abolishing slavery from the beginning. Injecting modern takes on Christianity, this could have and should have been debated. If God created everything and no one evolved, wouldn't that mean that all humans are equal? Certainly worth discussing. Certainly worth exploring why such conclusions were never reached.

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html

https://www.crf-usa.org/black-history-month/the-constitution-and-slavery

It also speaks to the odd stance of continuing to make such 'compromises'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1877

https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_events_reconstruct.html

Some of these 'compromises' have influenced inhuman acts elsewhere (Yes I know this is off topic, just adding some of the influence this has had on humanity).

https://www.cccb.org/en/multimedia/videos/jim-crow-racism-in-the-united-states/234000

https://www.history.com/news/how-the-nazis-were-inspired-by-jim-crow

**Note: Edited to add a few thoughts and links.


The included links are far from perfect or complete. Just trying to highlight that the 3/5ths compromise and several other compromises in US history are certainly worthy of debate. Justin Lafferty's 'debate' can easily debatable. As can incomplete curriculum.
There was a lot of debate about slavery. Even many of the slaveholding founding fathers abhorred it and saw the conflict, and predicted it would cause the US major problems in the future.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
49,845
Reaction score
4,098
Points
113
What was the reason for his 'debate'?
I don’t follow. But the media is lying and mischaracterizing the resistance to CRT being taught in schools. It is neo racism and Marxism, plain and simple.
 


STPGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
880
Points
113
I don’t really see how it’s debatable. Southern slave states wanted slaves counted for representation. It gave them more House of Reps and electoral votes. The north wanted them not counted at all. It was a middle ground compromise. The south would rather it not be included at all. So it wasn’t racist, and it wasn’t about blacks being 3/5s of a person. It was about weakening southern power. So he’s at least mostly correct. But we love a good racist Republican narrative.
Note: I added thoughts to the original post while you were in the middle of responding.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
21,139
Reaction score
3,496
Points
113
I don’t really see how it’s debatable. Southern slave states wanted slaves counted for representation. It gave them more House of Reps and electoral votes. The north wanted them not counted at all. It was a middle ground compromise. The south would rather it not be included at all. So it wasn’t racist, and it wasn’t about blacks being 3/5s of a person. It was about weakening southern power. So he’s at least mostly correct. But we love a good racist Republican narrative.
This is one of those favorite fables that lefty African-American activists like to misquote. “We were only 3/5ths of a person to them”.

If they would’ve been zero, slavery might have been abolished without a Civil War.
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
9,866
Reaction score
4,416
Points
113
This is one of those favorite fables that lefty African-American activists like to misquote. “We were only 3/5ths of a person to them”.

If they would’ve been zero, slavery might have been abolished without a Civil War.
You are going to have to work on this take a bit harder. What ever the number was, they didn't have a say in it, and that is the problem, rather than the number. If they had been counted as 3/5, 0, or 1, they were still slaves, who had zero say in the matter. "Well, yeah, we could have made it zero, and you would have been better of, but we didn't", isn't really a quality retort.
 


Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
49,845
Reaction score
4,098
Points
113
Note: I added thoughts to the original post while you were in the middle of responding.
I appreciate the effort, but I don’t really think I’m likely to go thru all of those links.
 


STPGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
880
Points
113
I don’t follow. But the media is lying and mischaracterizing the resistance to CRT being taught in schools. It is neo racism and Marxism, plain and simple.
I was in the process of posting a long response regarding your question and accidentally erased it.

I will try to address some key points. The summary is the debate isn't that simple.

The consequence of the compromise to those that were not legally fully human were that they were indeed treated as such. Thus for all practical purposes were indeed 3/5ths human.

Also there is more than fair reason to debate why those 'fleeing from religious persecution' amongst other things chose to allow slavery in the first place.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
49,845
Reaction score
4,098
Points
113
I was in the process of posting a long response regarding your question and accidentally erased it.

I will try to address some key points. The summary is the debate isn't that simple.

The consequence of the compromise to those that were not legally fully human were that they were indeed treated as such. Thus for all practical purposes were indeed 3/5ths human.

Also there is more than fair reason to debate why those 'fleeing from religious persecution' amongst other things chose to allow slavery in the first place.
Those are separate points to the 3/5 compromise. The anti slavery north wanted to count them as zero humans. The pro slavery south wanted them counted as full humans. But no one would seriously argue that the south considered slaves more fully human than the north. It’s a backward argument.

slavery was a very old world relic. It was the enlightenment movement, which became the basis for our founding, that was responsible for eliminating it.
 




Top Bottom