Do you agree slavery was bad and it should have ended yes or no

88

Anonymous OP 7w

1000 percent. Should’ve never had slavery as part of any history

7

notice how the post never mentions liberals or conservatives? that deflective whataboutism was entirely unprompted. why so defensive?

100

Comment Deleted

0

Sigh…. the southern democrats were the party that supported slavery and Jim Crow laws. They did this because they wanted to CONSERVE individual states rights (to do slavery) and a small federal government for no oversight. The Republican Party (the progressive, NOT Conservative Party at the time) was founded as an anti slavery party, and wanted a big federal government to enforce it.

56

Anonymous #4 7w

In the early 1900s, democrats moved towards using the government to help working class people (progressive ideology) while the republicans supported big businesses and fought against federal intervention (conservative ideology). Now you know about the party switch. Know your facts please. TLDR: the democrats supported slavery because THEY USED TO BE CONSERVATIVE, now the republicans have become the conservatives.

46

Anonymous #4 7w

in case this didn’t get through your thick skull, *CONSERVATIVES* WANTED TO KEEP SLAVERY. THEY WANTED TO *CONSERVE* SLAVERY. THEY JUST HAPPENED TO BE IN THE DEMOCRAT PARTY

52

this dumbass can’t differentiate between Democrat/Republican and conservative/liberal 💀 the party ideals were flipped back then, and you’d know that if you didn’t just regurgitate flimsy talking points lmao

81

Anonymous #4 7w

tbh i think most of these people, including #1, know about the party switch. they bring up the historical party lines anyway because they're morons who simply do not care about facts, logic, intellectual honesty or accuracy. they only care about making pathetic attempts at owning libs. i don't even think they care when everybody points and laughs at their idiocy anymore... they're proud to be dumb dodos as long as it bothers a lib. they'll eat shit just so libs have to smell their breath

36

Anonymous #6 7w

Plenty with the exact same mentality pushing for the same bullshit are, unfortunately, still alive.

64

Anonymous #6 7w

Here’s a modern equivalent

48

Anonymous #6 7w

People still wave the flag, people still support the cause.

36

Anonymous #2 7w

True in many cases

12

Anonymous #6 7w

Slavery is in fact still legal and widespread in this country. And the rippling effects of slavery are still present in systemic and institutional racism.

48

Anonymous letsgetridoftrump 7w

And a ban against contraception

32

Anonymous #7 7w

Niger and Russia have laws against asexuality and promoting child-free living, respectively, so it won’t take long before kkkuntservatives do the same.

19

Anonymous #3 7w

There’s a lot of southern black ppl waving those flags lol. Slavery was not the only reason the states seceded, it just happened to be the straw that broke the camel’s back

4

Anonymous #10 7w

Tbf, black people can still be racist, especially in the south where it’s so ingrained in everyone

94

Anonymous #11 7w

Exactly that. And you still get people lying saying it wasn’t about slavery when that is the focal point. That is what caused everything that happened.

50

If you know history, you know that democrats and republicans kind of switched sides/values throughout American history

27

Anonymous #15 7w

Congrats on ignoring the point of the post and adding in your white saviour bullshit to the mix.

60

Anonymous letsgetridoftrump 6w

white people??.. what are you talking about 😭

1

Anonymous #3 6w

what 3 means is, it’s not every white person, but when something happens, it’s ALWAYS a white person

15

Anonymous #10 6w

Please name one other “state right” issue that contributed to southern secession

40

Anonymous #17 6w

Legitimately the most brain dead, Self-victimizing take I’ve ever heard. Must be a shitty existence to always be at the mercy of the white man who makes considerations like social programs and public safety in the communities that they established hundreds of years ago because i deadass wouldnt see those institutions being a consideration if any other group had a sole had in establishing this nation. It must be tough.

-1

Anonymous #3 6w

Couple hundred thousand white people sacrificed their lives to end slavery. Not sure why you’re pushing for white guilt.

-1

Anonymous #8 6w

I apologize, I am ignorantly to this, where is racism still legal in this country?

-5

Anonymous #10 6w

i've lived in the south my entire life and i've never seen a black person wave that flag

31

Because Saturday the Christians had no work and no religious duties. Saturday was the day free from Church and work. Obviously.

18

Comment Deleted

0

Chattel slavery happened bc Africa became incredibly fractured during colonization and as the business of selling ppl to foreign interests became a means to an end it became popular- we caused cattle slavery w demand for slaves not bc it was already existing and the triangular slave trade was particularly cruel

16

America still partakes in slavery too btw. There’s a loophole in the 13th amendment dude

25

dumbass comment. the slaves weren't chattel until whites made them chattel. funnily enough you recognize the unique horror of chattel slavery and commercialized slavery as compared to historical forms of slavery, so you try to preempt it by arguing it's actually the africans fault... but they didn't start chattel slavery 😂 they sold slaves to whites who then instituted arguably the most horrific mass enslavement, displacement, killing, rape, forced impregnation and torture in history

21

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous #21 6w

The 13th amendment loophole? Ik American school systems suck but like how do you not know about that?

13

We live in a post colonized world dude. Colonization is what has shaped our current world. It’s kinda racist to think an entire continent is just like that

22

Anonymous #21 6w

Literally everywhere. Housing, education, employment governmental support, red lining, scientific research, linguistics, incarceration— all of these favour white people over anyone else, especially Black people. Everything is built to disenfranchise them. They work twice as hard to get half as far because of the bullshit in place. Not to mention the disgusting amount of violence that is done against them, especially by the police, which rarely ever sees justice.

21

Anonymous #3 6w

Black people are still being lynched and it’s deemed “suicide”. It’s fucking disgusting.

25

Anonymous #2 6w

Can’t forget the projecting cannibalism and skinning ppl on indigenous ppl but then turning around and skinning black ppl to make leather, filling pillows w their hair and using their babies as alligator bait…. It was especially horrific

20

"it's all muh heckin colonizations fault" my god you're all the same cookie-cutter intellectually and morally bankrupt dunces parroting whatever braindead nonsense suits your hateful biases. the reddit brainlets seeping out from 4chan and 4chan adjacent internment spaces need to be shunned out of polite society once again

-5

Anonymous #2 6w

*internet spaces

-4

The Republican Party yeah used to be based before the civil war and Abraham Lincoln was a republican but this was in the 1800s- the modern Republican Party is nothing like it was when we still had the whigs and constitutional union parties- ones that don’t even exist anymore

8

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous #2 6w

Can you explain how history doesn’t affect our present life or are you just gonna do name calling bc you don’t like to pick up a history book?

5

Well Quakers more so

6

Comment Deleted

0

And yet none of it was okay nor does it minimise or erase the unique atrocities of chattel slavery across occupied Turtle Island and the bullshit still felt by every Black person here today.

13

Anonymous #20 6w

And hundred thousands fought against ending slavery… white guilt isn’t apart of the convo but you can’t just ignore the bad parts bc some good ppl decided to stand up against it and you can’t ignore how long ppl fought to end it but were brushed aside until a full on civil war had to happen.

22

Anonymous #19 6w

Your take is so insane dude. Especially since many social programs like free breakfast for children in school was established by the black panther group. The whole you’re self victimizing bc actually white ppl did eventually allow social programs to help some communities so every issue caused by racists is fine is an incredibly hot take and not a good one

13

Anonymous #24 6w

yall are actually insane! i myself am white. and you all just assumed bc of my statement i wasnt.

0

Well that’s a pretty general take- that’s not true of every nation tribe or country. Also while it is true it existed in the past colonization took it on a broad scale and erased entire civilizations and cultures w it- Africa and India used to be full of thriving civilizations w medical, mathematical, and scientific advancements and an incredible trade system and within some nations banned slavery outright. Their environments cultures and history have been irreparably altered

7

Anonymous #17 6w

??? I’m confused who said anything about your race?

11

Anonymous #24 6w

19 said i was self victimizing and said my life must suck to always be at mercy to a white man

7

Anonymous #22 6w

You’re in the wrong part of the south then😭. Super common here

-7

Anonymous #25 6w

I think the side of the south w the conservative flags is probably the wrong side….

20

Anonymous #17 6w

Oh shit sorry thought you were 19!

9

Anonymous #24 6w

No shit I’m not saying I support it lmao. I just have seen plenty of black people with those flags that’s all. White people too obv but the post I responded to was abt black people and the flag specifically

2

Anonymous #17 6w

Noticing crime statistics are we? (Wildly inaccurate thing to say btw)

0

Anonymous #25 6w

Well maybe don’t tell them they’re in the wrong side of the South then? 💀

1

Wanna elaborate on what ur getting at here?

7

Anonymous #12 6w

Are you a man😭

15

Hey so… the confederacy was the conservative movement! Anyone with an even cursory understanding of American history would know that! 💔

15

Anonymous #7 6w

Moron

-3

Anonymous #26 6w

Do you have a brain?

-3

Anonymous #27 6w

Relevancy? And if you want to go there a mans opinion about the civil war matters more than a womans

-8

Anonymous #24 6w

Maybe use your brain and realize I meant wrong side as in the side that doesn’t have those people. Obviously the side that supports the confederate flag isn’t the right one bro 😭🙏

9

Anonymous #12 6w

tell me you’re an incel w/o telling me you’re an incel

16

Anonymous #12 6w

It’s “more than a women” coming from a *woman* you illiterate muttonhead. How are you a college student omg?

-7

Anonymous #12 6w

LMFAOOO, you didn’t even use the correct grammatical spelling of “man” in this sentence either. It’s “men’s opinion”… Holy crap, your whole sentence is just grammatically incorrect. Idiocracy at its finest. 😭

-2

Anonymous #24 6w

all good, lots of people on this thread

6

Anonymous #12 6w

I KNEW YOU WERE A MAN LMAO (It’s just I’ve come to expect braindead takes from men more than women)

13

Anonymous #7 6w

Lmao yep, that’s only white people

1

Anonymous #16 6w

“them” as in the people saying the quote abt peaceful protest, not white people 😭

2

Anonymous #28 6w

you are so loud and wrong omg 😭 the correct spelling is “a man’s opinion matters more than a woman’s”. #12 had it, he just needed an apostrophe. but I should add that what he said is a factually incorrect statement, because men today have absolutely nothing to do with the Civil War.

1

Anonymous #30 6w

Google is free. He was talking in plurality. You don’t add a s to an already plural word such as “men & women”. Lol

4

Anonymous #30 6w

It’s crazy because you’re in college typing college essays using elementary terms.

2

Anonymous #28 6w

“a men” and “a women” is grammatically incorrect. you are ALSO loud and wrong. it’s either “a man” and “a woman”, or “men’s” and “women’s”. say “a men’s opinion” and “a women’s opinion” out loud. it doesn’t even sound right.

6

Comment Deleted

0

Bro is arguing that white Americans are the real victims of racism. Lol.

7

Anonymous #27 6w

And then turned around and said

8

what?? I’m a leftist woman what do you mean omg??? grammar is not political

11

Anonymous #28 6w

THIS IS NOT CORRECT YOU NEED TO GO BACK TO MIDDLE SCHOOL ENGLISH.

1

wait did you reply to the wrong thread lol

8

Anonymous #30 6w

Oh it sent my reply to #12 to you lmao

6

Anonymous #27 6w

ohhhh lmfao that makes so much more sense

8

Anonymous #30 6w

Yeah it switches if you touch the comment and I was scrolling😭

8

Yeah because of economic unsustainability - not because of any moral compunctions or adherence to anti-racist principle.

9

Anonymous #28 6w

I also want to add that he was not referring to men in the plural sense, because he said “a man’s opinion” (one man), not “men’s opinions” (multiple men). your reading comprehension AND your understanding of grammar are both poor.

9

Anonymous #30 6w

Okay lmfao. I’m not going to argue with someone that won’t educate themselves on simple grammar in college. Maybe start taking your papers to the tutoring lab for English literature from now on though.

-3

Anonymous #27 6w

If you did, you’re obtuse. I said I was a woman, when I corrected your spelling. Your lack of comprehension and literacy def checks out. Typical right-wing man projection tho” huh?

-2

Anonymous #30 6w

more evidence since I am being downvoted for indiscernable reasons! No Child Left Behind really was not doing y’all any good.

12

Anonymous #28 6w

Your IQ is below 90 holy shit, how do you manage to make a mistake while attempting to correct me

3

Anonymous #12 6w

THANK YOU omfg. I really hate to agree with a misogynist but why are we the only two people in this thread who know how plurals work

8

Anonymous #5 6w

Nope, good try though

-5

Anonymous #30 6w

He added an “S.” Again, you do not need to add an “S” to an already plural noun. Adding an “S” makes a word plural when you’re talking about more than one. Men and women are already plural on their own, so adding an “S” is grammatically incorrect. I’m not going to go back and forth when you can simply look it up. If you want to be stubborn and stay wrong and keep getting downvoted, then do you, I guess.

-2

Anonymous #4 6w

Sooooo #1, any response?

1

Anonymous #30 6w

Yeah seriously. I don’t even know whats going on anymore, i was just trying to rage bait a little bit and this midwit mounts a full assault on my grammar. I don’t even have beef with you anymore this is too funny

-3

Anonymous #12 6w

You wanted to rage bait under a discussion about human trafficking, rape, genocide, and torture?

17

Anonymous #30 6w

https://www.ef.edu/english-resources/english-grammar/singular-and-plural-nouns/ Here’s a link to plural words. It’s a .edu so it’s a verifiable source. While you, a college student is sending me a YouTube song.

-3

Anonymous #28 6w

omg. he said “*A* man’s opinion”, as in any SINGULAR given man, and “*A* woman’s”, as in a SINGULAR given woman. he said “[any given] man’s opinion is worth more than [any given] woman’s”. HE WAS NOT SPEAKING BROADLY IN THE PLURAL SENSE. he was speaking broadly in the SINGULAR sense. and, to be extremely clear, I still disagree with what he said, but it was grammatically correct.

5

Anonymous #27 6w

🤓 YOU asked me if i was a man for no reason trying to make it a gender issue, so i clapped back. You started this you buffoon

-5

Anonymous #12 6w

You literally said “iqlet take” as your initial reply… you’re really sick ngl😭

14

Anonymous #30 6w

How does this person not understand what you are telling them?

0

Anonymous #28 6w

GRAMMAR NERD HERE ☝️🤓 both #12’s original message and #28’s correction were wrong grammatically. The correct sentence would be “A man’s opinion about the civil war matters more than a woman’s.” But don’t y’all think you lost the plot arguing about grammar instead of the original post?

4

Anonymous #30 6w

AND you still corrected him to “*A* women” which would be WRONG REGARDLESS OF WHAT HE SAID, plural or not.

1

Anonymous #27 6w

Yeah because this is a stupid post, you do realize that (as a whole group) White people were the first group in the world to end slavery right?

-6

Anonymous #28 6w

DID YOU JUST CALL THE MOTHERFUCKIN BEE GEES A YOUTUBE SONG

6

Anonymous #13 6w

that is what #12 said though, he just forgot the apostrophe. the syntax was correct

10

Anonymous #13 6w

I think everyone is confusing my corrections here. “Relevancy? And if you want to go there, the opinions of men about the Civil War matter more than the opinions of women.” This is also grammatically correct while also keeping the plural nouns. This is what I was talking about when I said he was wrong and could have worded it better

-1

Anonymous #28 6w

The original wording is fine girlypop 😭 and nitpicking grammar is not the way to win a politics debate

10

Anonymous #13 6w

Lmfao, I don’t really care to win a political take with a man using “iqlet take”. I’m going to nitpick. Plus this whole debate is centered around a factually sound argument. So I don’t care much for it. It’s why I’m nitpicking him 😭😭😭

-1

The concepts of left and right that existed in this error are not the same as today idk why y’all keep regurgitating this irrelevant argument

1

Anonymous #34 6w

*era

1

Anonymous #28 6w

“a man’s opinion on the Civil War matters more than a woman’s opinion” is completely fine. there’s zero reason to correct that sentence. #12 was saying that any singular given man’s opinion on the matter is worth more than any singular given woman’s opinion. they were not broadly referring to ALL men and ALL women, plural, at once.

1

Anonymous #30 6w

I understand the distinction you’re making, but “all men/women” to “any individual man/woman” doesn’t actually make the statement less sexist. It arguably makes it worse. If you’re saying that any individual man’s opinion is inherently worth more than any individual woman’s opinion, then you’re still assigning greater value to someone’s opinion solely based on their sex. Whether you’re comparing all men vs. all women or one man vs. one woman.

2

Anonymous #28 6w

We’re not talking about the meaning of the sentence, we’re talking about the grammar

6

Anonymous #13 6w

In that case, I don’t care. It’s just grammar 💀, I thought we dropped it

-2

Anonymous #35 6w

You can quit with the white saviour bullshit.

14

Anonymous #3 6w

He’s psychotic

14

that’s just not true. conservatism means conserving traditional institutions. definitionally the conservatives wanted to keep slavery because it was a traditional institution, and progressives wanted to abolish it. it is accurate to say the democratic party was the conservative party at the time and hence was in support of slavery

1

Anonymous #36 6w

in a similar vein liberalism is a political movement centered on the belief in personal autonomy and equal rights, it was the main philosophical outcome of the enlightenment. following the tenets of liberalism does lead to abolitionist politics (which was one of the arguments by abolitionists at the time) however many historical figures who would be considered liberals or followed liberalism did own slaves (such as the founding fathers) which abolitionists pointed out was very hypocritical

6

Anonymous #27 6w

lol everything I said is true and u can’t debunk me hence u j saying some random shit

-1

Anonymous #35 6w

It really isn’t; it’s grievance-driven revisionism designed to offload moral culpability from the patrons of a racist human trafficking network💀 Then you added the ridiculous notion that the northerners entered the civil war for moral concerns and not economic ones, which is a factually incorrect claim, by their own recorded admission😭

22

Anonymous #27 6w

The better question is why you feel the need to sanitize the involvement of antebellum enslavers by acting like the act of purchasing human beings to subject them to sexual and chattel slavery is materially better than having sold them? And why you’re sanitizing the motives of northerners who immediately enacted Jim Crow after reunifying the union? And why you’re conflating the cultural differences between the “black leaders” and the individuals they sold, as though they were same groups?

15

Anonymous #27 6w

It’s really giving you didn’t know the geopolitics of antebellum Africa, nor did you care to find out because they were just “the blacks” from your perspective. That kinda explains the aforementioned white sanitizing😭

16

Anonymous #27 6w

It’s not revisionism lol. Slavery was practiced worldwide and still is practiced in parts of the world today, just not practiced in the western world. Many Africans profited off of the trans Atlantic slave trade

-3

Anonymous #27 6w

I said blacks because their black, just like you said whites instead of Europeans. Not a big deal. Yes some northerners joined for economic concerns but many joined for moral, you do realize if it was just for economic reasons and not moral the White people who were 100% of congress at the time wouldn’t have passed the 13th,14th and 15th amendments right? You do know white people passed those amendments right? And northerners didn’t really have Jim Crow laws.

-1

Anonymous #27 6w

I didn’t make the original comment but the buyer of slaves is no better than the seller. I don’t think the original commenter was trying to insinuate that. All of slavery is bad. Also northerners never had Jim Crow laws. That was only in the South. Not to say the north was perfect, there was absolutely racism and segregation but it was de-facto segregation. It wasn’t by law like in the south

-2

Anonymous #27 6w

Do YOU know the politics of Africa of that time lmfaoo your lost

-1

Anonymous #27 6w

“Antebellum Africa” is not a widely used phrase. Did u mean Antebellum South?

-2

Anonymous #10 6w

Antebellum-era* Africa

7

Anonymous #10 6w

Yes, #35 actually did textbook revisionism, and you’re doing like… revisionism of his revisionism… meta-revisionism? I also fail to see how this is relevant to the original post, or even #35’s claim…

12

Anonymous #35 6w

That wasn’t the point I was making; the point I was making was that you treated Africans as a monolith to offload responsibility of kidnappers by suggesting they were “the same as” their kidnapping victims, which was a transparent attempt to lay the logical groundwork to elevate the kidnapping victims in question to the same threshold of moral responsibility as their white buyers… which is kind of sociopathic ngl

12

Anonymous #27 6w

Cap it ain’t revisionism just facts again notice how you didn’t respond to what I said matter of fact you doing your own revisionism A simple google search shows 90% of slaves in America were sold to Europeans by other Africans

1

Anonymous #35 6w

why do y’all keep trying to equate a nation’s system of racial oppression to people in ruling positions being greedy? one is the fault of isolated individuals, the other is an entire people complicit in the enslavement of another.

15

Anonymous #35 6w

dawg it’s been 6 min since your other comment, they’re responding to multiple 💀 quit acting like it’s a “gotcha” to not respond to you first lmao

13

Anonymous #5 6w

Because if he operates through that (ridiculous) chain of thought, then the white enslavers aren’t the principle of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, which means they shouldn’t carry the brunt of the blame for it, which means his status as a beneficiary of the downstream effects of slavery can’t be associated with the immorality of slavery, which therefore eases his conscious and enables him disregard any notion that he’s perpetuating the same system that they were

11

Anonymous #35 6w

Hey so this actually is totally irrelevant to what I said, and is another example of you doing exactly what I said you were doing!

7

Anonymous #27 6w

For it to be revisionist then it has to be wrong. It is a correct statement that the west was the first to outlaw slavery. It is also factual that many Africans profited greatly off of the trans Atlantic slave trade. Slavery existed in Africa and everywhere else in the world before the trans Atlantic slave trade ever started.

-3

Anonymous #10 6w

Wrong twice: -revisionist may not mean changing the facts so much as simply changing the frame -America was not the first to outlaw slavery, in fact, it was one of the last, and if you want to be technical, it never was completely outlawed

14

Anonymous #28 6w

I’m not saying it’s not sexist. it is sexist! I said that earlier in the thread. it’s just also grammatically correct, so you should be addressing the sexism instead of the grammar.

4

Anonymous #37 6w

Slavery/human trafficking continues to be a human rights issue across the globe. That sort of crime thrives particularly in destabilized or impoverished regions, and those conditions are overwhelmingly a downstream effect of European colonization and military intervention.

13

Anonymous #18 6w

Obviously, fuck Europe 🇺🇸 not saying the white man is absolved but genuinely go read our amendments 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

-2

Anonymous #37 6w

Ah, yes, because those fixed everything. 🙄

6

Anonymous #3 6w

Do you want a Monorachy? A theocracy? A government less powerful than terrorist? G-d bless the west 🇺🇸🇺🇸

-4

Anonymous #37 6w

Ah, yes, because the capitalistic hellscape built upon slavery and genocide, ran by paedophiles is totally amazing. The US colony is fucking abhorrent and continues to kill every single day. Any other bullshit?

13

Anonymous #25 6w

Ik what you meant now dude it’s not that deep just watch your phrasing or you’re gonna misconstrue your meaning

1

Anonymous #10 6w

You can’t try to displace the blame by saying everyone was doing it or that some Africans sold others. There was demand and an entire system set up by colonizers. African isn’t a monolith either as an entire continent. Some countries inside tried to deter the slave trade and outright tried to ban it but there’s only so much you can do when entire civilizations became fractured during colonization and colonizers came in and took over lands and peoples altering the entire environment and cultures

9

Anonymous #24 6w

Europeans didn’t colonize Africa until the 1880s, well after the trans Atlantic slave trade was over so ur just straight up wrong lmao

2

Anonymous #27 6w

America was not one of the last to outlaw slavery. That’s just blatantly false. It is true that other western countries had already outlawed slavery but calling America one of the last is just completely false. Also slavery so absolutely completely illegal today in America so now ur rly just saying things to say things

-4

Anonymous #10 6w

You could’ve easily done a google search before leaving such an easily debunked comment but I guess it’s not really surprising that someone desperate to sanitize white history is also intellectually dishonest and/or intellectually deficient lol

10

Anonymous #27 6w

Did u do a google search? Easily debunk what I said then

-3

Anonymous #10 6w

the 13th amendment quite literally says that slavery can be used as a punishment for a crime. "absolutely completely illegal" is a dumbass comment. not to mention there are other non-prisoners who can be legally forced to engage in certain crucial job roles, which is slavery

16

Anonymous #2 6w

Ur an idiot. That’s because it has to be legal to send ppl to jail. Would u prefer if we didn’t have jail and allowed criminals to walk around freely? Quite sooooo many rights are infringed upon if u are convicted of a crime lmao

-3

Anonymous #10 6w

The way you don’t even appreciate how your stance has gone from “slavery is illegal in this country” to “slavery is only a punishment for criminals in this country” in one exchange

11

Anonymous #10 6w

To answer your question, yes, I did; I actually worked for several years in a museum that centered on exactly this topic, which is how I know both of your points are factually incorrect, and there’s extensive scholarly literature that confirms this. I’m more curious as to where you got the idea that America was the first to abolish slavery instead of one of the last, and where you got the idea that a country that added more steps to justify slavery “abolished” slavery???

11

Anonymous #27 6w

Ur an idiot. Slavery is completely illegal. It is completely illegal to buy and sell human beings in the US. If u are convicted of a crime u are punished and u lose certain rights. It is completely illegal to hold a human being against their will in the US, but we still have jail. U are not understanding basic nuance

-3

Anonymous #10 6w

ohhh you're just baiting. nobody is actually that braindead. thanks for making it obvious bud

14

Anonymous #2 6w

If u think that’s baiting then ur insane. There’s a huge difference between being punished for a crime you’ve been committed of and being a slave. Trying to draw a comparison between the two to state that slavery is legal/isn’t fully banned is insane

-4

Anonymous #10 6w

Your argument has devolved into “our slavery is better than theirs because ours is only delegated to deserved scumbags hehe”💀

10

Anonymous #27 6w

No it hasn’t lmao. My argument is that being punished for a crime you were convicted of under due process for a specific set of time is FAR different than being owned by another human perpetually and being able to buy and sell human beings. We also have countless examples of specific carvebacks of individual rights in specific, agreed upon circumstances in the US and just societies broadly

-2

Anonymous #10 6w

It seems you don’t understand the definition of slavery, which is shocking given your age

12

Anonymous #10 6w

what you're describing – being owned by another human perpetually – is chattel slavery. other forms of slavery exist, including forced penal labor. you just don't know what the word slavery means because you have the intellectual range of a literal fucking child, which i say because even most teenagers who pay an ounce of attention in history classes understand this

9

Anonymous #10 6w

not that you could read this anyway

11

Anonymous #2 6w

Forced penal labor is not slavery. This is like saying prison is kidnapping. It’s stupid, there is a big difference between the two. And if u want to get very literal, being owned as property is a key part of the definition of slavery, forced penal labor does not meet that description. So ur wrong on all accounts

-3

Anonymous #10 6w

“Forced labor isn’t slavery” bye lmao

13

Anonymous #10 6w

you're using chattel slavery (the ownership of people as personal/private property) as an umbrella term for slavery to exclude other forms of slavery, which is braindead. forced labor is slavery

14

Anonymous #10 6w

the term you would use if you wanted to be "very literal" would be "de facto slavery" which describes unfree/forced labor

10

Anonymous #2 6w

I think she knows and doesn’t gaf

7

Anonymous #27 6w

probably, but this isn't an uncommon misconception so i addressed it for the literate people capable of comprehension and nuance

12

Anonymous #10 6w

man you are a FUCKING IMBECILE holy lord

19

Anonymous #2 6w

De facto slavery isn’t slavery, that’s why they put the term “de facto” infront of it. Anyways this is just boiling it down to the most basic form of logic without regard for any nuance. This argument is the same as saying jail is kidnapping because ppl are being held against their will. Kidnapping is completely illegal and completely different from jail despite the fact that they are both holding ppl against their will. Holding criminals in jail is a punishment for a crime they have committed.

-3

Anonymous #10 6w

false equivalency

8

Anonymous #10 6w

why are you so insistent on being stupid man

8

Anonymous #2 6w

That doesn’t prove ur point at all. The examples on that speak to it. De facto segregation vs segregation. If the speed limit is 30 mph but everyone drives 40 on it, the road is literally a 30 but it’s a de facto 40. Using de facto in this argument is just breaking it down to the most basic logic solely so that u have some sort of point

-2

Anonymous #2 6w

The kidnapping v jail analogy is the perfect analogy for this. U are trying to use the base definition (which btw isn’t even the base definition, it’s a significantly broadened definition in order for u to still have an argument) and apply that to the punishment of a crime without acknowledging that it is a punishment for a crime. If you are in jail u are being held against ur will, the same way that if u are doing penal labor u are doing work against ur will. That doesn’t make jail kidnapping

-3

Anonymous #10 6w

The same way that it doesn’t make penal labor slavery

-3

Anonymous #38 6w

Can yall stop spamming this holy shit I’ve gotten dozens of notis nobody cares

6

Anonymous #38 6w

Some of us want our notifications on for important stuff 🖕🏻

3

Anonymous #37 6w

important stuff on this post? i dont think its important so you should stop messaging then. are we even?

-1

Anonymous #10 6w

de facto means in actuality, de jure means in law. de facto segregation is segregation regardless of law, and de jure segregation is segregation under law. both are segregation. there is no "de facto segregation vs segregation"; it is de facto vs de jure. you are quite literally just saying "illegal segregation vs codified segregation" again, the kidnapping analogy is false equivalency. but you aren't intellectually curious do you literally repeated yourself instead of asking how

2

Anonymous #10 6w

Some of the first trading posts were established in the mid 1800s and coastal regions started being owned by the 1870s actually- you start tearing down and destroying civilizations to even begin taking and colonizing territorities. Colonizers don’t just show up and say hey this my land now- it takes major time and disruption to start taking down entire lands.

3

Anonymous #2 6w

Ur misrepresenting the term “in actuality” that’s why I used the speed limit analogy. If the speed limit is 30 but ppl commonly drive 40 on it then u can say it is a de facto 40 but that doesn’t make the speed limit actually 40. Same thing with segregation. De facto segregation isn’t segregation because nobody is forcing ppl to be separate. Ppl are choosing to live where they want to live. The kidnapping analogy is the perfect analogy for reasons I’ve previously described

-4

Anonymous #2 6w

I felt like it was more prudent to describe why it was a proper comparison but because u keep saying it is a false equivalency but haven’t backed that up with anything, please describe why the logic behind those two statements is different

-2

Anonymous #10 6w

I will describe pls stop spamming ts its been days, just take it in the dms

-3

Anonymous #24 6w

The British empire banned the international trade of slaves in 1807 and the US banned international slave trade in 1808 which wiped out the vast majority of the trans Atlantic slave trade. Both well before the mid 1800s. Also trade posts and colonization are far different from one another and completely unrelated. Trade posts help local economies. All that trading did was make African nations wealthier and stronger. There is no disruption until colonization, which is after slavery

0

Anonymous #10 6w

Can you explain the comparison between the quantitative measurement of speed limit to the qualitative state of slavery? What does 40mph and 50mph represent in the comparison to segregation or slavery? Are you saying 40mph is slavery and 50mph is segregation?

7

Anonymous #40 6w

It was explaining the meaning of the terms de facto. It had nothing to do with slavery itself. The fact that u thought it was a comparison to slavery is genuinely embarrassing

-1

Anonymous #10 6w

*term

0

Anonymous #40 6w

Yeah I’ll explain STOP SPAMMING NOBODY CARES ITS BEEN DAYS TAKE IT IN THE DMS

-1

Anonymous #35 6w

Now now, there’s no need to get racist

1

Anonymous #10 6w

You said "same thing with segregation", suggesting your example of de facto with two speed limits would apply the same to segregation. It doesn't

5

Anonymous #10 6w

Can you explain to me what differentiates killing from murder?

4

Anonymous #22 6w

Some black kid got the confederate flag tattooed on him, you’re just not in the rural areas

1

Anonymous #12 6w

that is the strangest take i’ve ever heard lmaoo. they were the ones that started it... what were the asians supposed to end what the white ppl started?? 😭😭

0

Anonymous #30 6w

it’s ok #30 i’m a lil late but i understand wat you meant 😭

1

Anonymous #40 6w

The same concept of “de facto” applies to both examples

-1

Anonymous #40 6w

Murder is intentionally taking the life of another person and killing is when life is ended. For example if u get in a car crash where someone dies, you killed them but u did not murder them

-1

Anonymous #10 6w

They intersect but they are not the same. Every murder is a killing but not every killing is a murder. It’s concerning you can’t differentiate between the two

-1

Anonymous #40 6w

Anyways this has literally nothing to do with the previous debate. This has gone entirely into semantics because the dissenting argument has zero ground to stand on and u guys clearly don’t even understand semantics so that argument is awful as well

-1

Anonymous #10 6w

Murder can't just be intentionally taking a life because that would include self defense, assisted suicide, pulling the plug on a person who won't return to consciousness, and many more forms of killing that aren't murder. I'll ask one more time before I explain: What differentiates killing from murder?

1

Anonymous #10 6w

It's relevant, I'm just not explaining why right away

1

Anonymous #10 6w

The irony of saying it's concerning that I can't differentiate but your definition counts all intentional killing as murder which is blatantly false 🤭 Try again buddy

1

Anonymous #10 6w

Wait... Are you bitching about semantics in a conversation about the meaning of words? You realize this *entire* discussion is semantic, right? YOU are making semantic arguments 😂

5

Anonymous #40 6w

If u want to get so specific then add unlawful to the definition and tell me why ur asking

1

Anonymous #40 6w

This argument didn’t start that way lmao. I said that slavery is illegal in the US and in attempts to prove that it was others went into a debate about semantics surrounding slavery

1

Anonymous #10 6w

And now we have entered into a debate about the semantics of semantics. It’s like a Seinfeld episode. U guys would literally rather say anything than just be wrong

1

Anonymous #10 6w

I can’t believe ur “gotcha” was that I didn’t explicitly include unlawful in the definition lmao

1

Anonymous #10 6w

It's not a gotcha buddy. I'm simply walking you through my logic and your defensive attitude is making you interpret that as a gotcha Now, you seem to understand that legality is what determines "murder". Next, I'll ask you what makes a sex act rape? Is somebody still a rapist if they non-consensually force sex with somebody, even if a jurisdiction has no rape charge (which is actually the case in several)? I would say yes. Would you?

5

Anonymous #40 6w

Nobody cares take it in the dms it’s been 6 days do yall got nothing better going on

-2

Anonymous #40 6w

Yes that’s still a rapist. Make ur point

-2

Anonymous #42 6w

White people did not start slavery you absolute buffoon 🤣🤣 you are a midwit with no knowledge of history just stop talking

0

Anonymous #12 6w

first off pipe down i didn’t hurl insults at you. secondly, was it not white ppl who went to west africa and started the transatlantic slave trade? then colonized the majority of african countries? then “ended” slavery because the slaves started rebelling? if not then pls direct me to a reliable source that states otherwise.

0

Anonymous #10 6w

Okay. So what makes kidnapping different from imprisonment?

1

Anonymous #35 6w

if you look in the top right corner, there’s a button to turn off notifs. since you clearly are getting pissed off about people commenting here.

2

Anonymous #5 6w

Notis r turned off whenever I wanna go see new stuff I always see this lmao it’s been days

-1

Anonymous #40 5w

Lmao so u agree with me. Being convicted of a crime through due process is what separates kidnapping from imprisonment the same way it’s separates slavery from penal labor

-2