Mavigogun wrote on 11/30/19 at 05:02:19:



If it used to known as decency, what is it known as now?

Best regards,

Eegore wrote on 11/30/19 at 16:32:32:



It was never decent....

The term first appeared in Marxist-Leninist vocabulary following the Russian Revolution of 1917. At that time it was used to describe adherence to the policies and principles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (that is, the party line).

Yes, the Bolsheviks were kind souls.  

Best regards,

More often than not, the phrase is used by despicable people to distract/deflect from their egregious acts -as is the case here.  Declaring that you enjoy calling folks you don't like names they don't care for, then labelling black folks "colored", is baldly racist provocation.  Objecting to your disregard of harm and denial of dignity for blacks is just the decent response.   You already understood that when you chose your words; you've made who you are perfectly clear- this ruse of denial is rediculouse.  Which is the point-  plausibility was never your purpose, so much as telegraghing the terms by which you will engage.

pg wrote on 12/01/19 at 04:02:07:


Sophistic noise- your choice was "colored", not "people of color".    Your character is seen in light of the totality of what you've exposed here- including your recent truncated cut-n-past Civil War Era history to support the notion that opposition to slavery was purely economic self interest.   Your protest is disingenious, deniability implausible.

pg wrote on 12/01/19 at 12:55:28:


Backpedaling would be more effective if you weren't referring to a record anyone could just scroll up and read.

The war was not about any noble effort, it was simply about economics...

The "noble effort" alluded to here was the Abolitionist Movement.   For a guy who lies so often, you do it exceptionally poorly.

 ... you even stated my ancestors likely benefited from the slavery establishment.

As it turns out, you're a willful immigrant to Confederate values, rather than a native son.   A man of your own making.  Most folks who pretend the Civil War was "simply about economic", and nothing to do with the Abolitionist Movement, the conscientious rejection of slavery, do so to feel better about the evil choices of their ancestors.   They do it for false pride.   The record is clear and extant: plenty of folks rejected slavery on moral basis, were motivated to fight as an ethical imperative.   You pretending otherwise is insipid.

The topic of this thread is the compelling pattern of malpractice by law enforcement and profound inequity in application of the justice system.   For whatever reason, that topic makes you uncomfortable enough to play this stupid what-about-ism game, floundering about from recent unrelated anecdotes to the Civil War to justify your animus.

pg wrote on 12/02/19 at 05:58:32:


Congratulations- you've achieved the level of every dullard who believes sprinkling their prejudice and supposition with record conveys credibility by association.   Your cut-n-paste of the well elucidated accounts of others only emphasizes your own blindered review of history.
 
Also, I made no comment on the institution of slavery.

Don't believe what we read, eh?   Good on you, "pg", emulating those you admire most.   Go for the big, obvious lie.   Unfortunate for you, that requires a complicit audience who have an interest in surrendering discernment, basic literacy.

The war was not about any noble effort, it was simply about economics...

'I didn't say the word "slavery".   I didn't say "quid-pro-quo"'.

Such fundamental dishonesty- I would be ashamed.   You make your choices... and are known by them.