At least, is a safe assumption that he believes that, based on his evident rejection of this:
He has recently gone into attack-Connie mode. His latest is an attack on me made entirely of straw men, in which he accuses me of ... yep, you guessed it -- straw man arguments. Among other distorted accusations.
It appears that what set him off this time was my posts about Gone South, my novella-in-progress. I'm still not sure what it is about my novels, which he has said or implied are insignificant, poorly written, racist and trashy (though he purports to have never read them) that has the ability to send him into such a frenzy. He even goes into a tizzy over one that's still being plotted and hasn't even been written yet.
So he's in attack-Connie mode... while I'm in research-and-plot my novella mode. Most of his overwrought attack is so distorted by his animosity for Southern heritage in general and me in particular, it isn't worth commenting on. But there are a few tidbits I might address at some point down the road.
For now, I'll mention, rather than Simpson's distorted post, a couple of comments.
The first is by LibertyLamprey replying to "P Diddy," (who claimed that Simpson was "regressed to your little knowledge of history..."
P Diddy, you’re telling one of the most respected academics of history in the country that he has “little knowledge of history”? REALLY? Well, where are your creds as expert in history? Or do you really believe that reading the crap Sea Raven press peddles around? Because a propaganda press service knows more than those who have actually gone to UVA and have degrees in the subject? And you wonder why your group of ConFetishists are never taken seriously…"
I would say to Lamprey that a history professor who allows his ideology to trump history is greatly diminishing his knowledge. Respected by whom? I would also say that the university publishing racket in the USA is itself a gigantic propaganda press service, http://bit.ly/19EVeue and I would say there's no such thing as a "ConFetishist".
The second is by Rob Baker.
"Pointing out that New Englanders participated in the slave trade does not absolve white southerners of anything." No kidding. The tu quoque deflection methods used by the advocates is a moot point to begin with.
Lemme 'splain it in a way Tu Quoquers can understand. A little boy is walking down the sidewalk. Two other little boys come up to him. The first one grabs him and holds him while the second one punches him in the stomach and takes his lunch money. The two boys then split the lunch money and walk away. Who is guilty of beating up the little boy and stealing his money?
In the yankee-apologist mentality, the first little boy is guilty. He's the one who punches. He's the one who digs around in the little victim's pocket and grabs the money. The first little boy really isn't guilty because he didn't punch and he didn't dig around in pockets. All he did was hold the little victim, and didn't hurt him in any way.
What this ignores is that the second boy would not have been able to punch and steal from the victim if the victim had been able to fight back or run away. The first boy prevented that. In fact, he enabled the punching and theft. Saying so does not absolve the second little boy of punching and stealing -- he did it, no doubt. But saying that he did so does not absolve the first little boy from enabling the attack, and profiting from it afterward.
Without northern enabling, slavery in the South could not have existed, and saying so is not "absolving" the south, as so many wish to absolve the north by ignoring, minimizing, disguising or otherwise perfuming the north's enabling and participation in slavery. In fact, the accusation that heritage folks want to "absolve"the south of slavery is likely a projection of the yankee-apologists desire to absolve the north of its role in slavery, without which -- as noted -- slavery could not have existed.
Everybody have a nice day.
Absolving white Southerner of anything is not the purpose of said "pointing out", and it is not tu quoque. It is simply a reminder of that which most yankee-apologists wish to ignore in their mad determination to make white Southerners uniquely evil and uniquely guilty in the slavery-and-racism blame game.
ReplyDeleteWhat? Really? It is the very definition of tu quoque!
From Merriam-Webster: a retort charging an adversary with being or doing what he criticizes in others.
Your analogy is ridiculous because they are both responsible and are both equal partners in the assault. To focus on one person is to still focus on the issue that the little boy was robbed by equal partners in a venture. To focus on one, is to focus on the same crime. To suggest that it is comparable to slavery and slave facilitators i.e. merchant shippers is completely and utterly ridiculous. They have separate roles in the and action. It would be more accurate to create an analogy where the two boys that attacked the young boy, spent their trial yelling about the 3rd grader that told them where the boy was. Whether they 3rd grader was malicious or not is moot when talking about the attack itself. Not to mention the fact that the slave trade was banned (much to the chagrin of Southerners) which kicked off an industry of smuggling and breeding.
In fact, the accusation that heritage folks want to "absolve"the south of slavery is likely a projection of the yankee-apologists desire to absolve the north of its role in slavery, without which -- as noted -- slavery could not have existed.
Again! tu quoque. You are so utterly clueless when it comes to logical fallacies. And to say that without Northern shipping slavery would not have existed is completely and utterly absurd! Southern shipping companies facilitated the trade of slaves on their own. Had their been a market for expansion in the absence of Northern trade, economic history shows us that those capitalists would have more than seized at the opportunity to facilitate the trade. Alas, the Northern industry based largely on commercial shipping in the late 18th, early 19th centuries, removed the void, allowing Southern capitalists to focus on something else. The key economic principle in this is demand. Without demand, then there would be no slaves. But alas, there was demand. Very strong demand from the South.
Keep with the romance novels Connie, it's what you do best.
Connie I doubt you can explain it in a way that Rob or Libertylamp could understand it....you're using words that are a bit too long for them, namely anything over 6 letters.
ReplyDeleteRob, if the argument is logical, then it's not a logical fallacy.
ReplyDeleteAlso, fantasizing is not a good argument ("Southern shipping companies facilitated the trade of slaves on their own. Had their been a market for expansion in the absence of Northern trade, economic history shows us that those capitalists would have more than seized at the opportunity to facilitate the trade.") Southern shipping companies did not exist in the numbers required for the cargo volume, and saying they WOULD have if there and been no northern shipping, is the Star Trek alternate-universe style of history. It's the impossible all-knowing declaration by one who cannot know what WOULD have been ... similar to those who say, "Southern men who owned no slaves fought the civil war because they all WANTED slaves, ASPIRED to slave ownership" someday..."
It all comes from the same indoctrination-induced desire to evilize white Southerners and absolve yankees, to portray the latter as pure as the driven snow.
Oh, and Rob, you can piss and moan all you want to about "tu quoquue" or whatever, but I am going to continue to point out the flogger double-standard view of the civil war, slavery, racism, etc. If you don't like it, maybe you should find some other blogger to harass.
ReplyDeleteIt would be more accurate to create an analogy where the two boys that attacked the young boy, spent their trial yelling about the 3rd grader that told them where the boy was.
ReplyDeleteAh, no. That would not be a more accurate analogy of flogger mentality with its union-apologist stance and its raison d'etre the evilization of white Southerners, past and present.
The flogger mentality is to whitewash northern complicity by ignoring it, minimizing it, disguising or otherwise perfuming it. Notice the comments at Simpson's flog -- classic examples of minimizing northern responsibility, and focusing it all on the South. Apparently, they just can't help themselves.
Rant on Connie, rant on. In the end, that's all you got.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I appreciate the numerous comments, perhaps you can keep your calm long enough to respond with one. It looks less like a rant that way.
Your argument cannot be logical, because you are committing a logical fallacy when creating it, therefore posing an illogical retort. Philosophy 101.
No, that's just simple economic theories of supply and demand. You must have been writing short stories during your economics classes in school. Try to keep up.
...similar to those who say, "Southern men who owned no slaves fought the civil war because they all WANTED slaves, ASPIRED to slave ownership" someday..."
Ha ha. Those that, "demonize" white Southerners, did not come up with those arguments, white Southerners in the 1860's came up with those arguments in recruiting efforts.
Perhaps you should point out the double standard. No body denies national racism, the North's part in the slave economic system, slave trade, etc. etc. You are the one that continues to deflect the ills of the South (okay, let's be honest...you outright ignore the ills of the antebellum South)by pointing out the ills of the North. There is no double standard. Only your narrow mindedness.
As for your last comment; more of the same. Same ol' straw man argument that just ain't true. JSTOR, and numerous other academic databases are full of articles dealing with racial issues in the North. Only Confederate Heritage advocates think otherwise.
Honestly Connie, got any new material?
My argument is not illogical. It's not even an argument; it's an observation.
ReplyDeleteYou don't understand political propaganda, war propaganda? You think it's truth? (I'll bet you also believe Saddam had WMDs, or that if you like your health care coverage, you can keep it -- smirk -- or that unemployment is 7%.)
Besides, you'd have to prove to me that most people thus evilizing white Southerners today even know about that propaganda, so yes, I believe many making the accusation today have "come up" with it because they've been instructed or influenced in "Southern white evil".
"No body denies national racism, the North's part in the slave economic system, slave trade, etc. etc."
Yes, they do, by ignoring it, minimizing it, disguising or otherwise perfuming it. Those are indeed forms of denial.
"You are the one that continues to deflect the ills of the South (okay, let's be honest...you outright ignore the ills of the antebellum South)by pointing out the ills of the North."
There's no need to showcase the ills of the South when that has been done to death, over and, over, driven into the ground and broke off by floggers and their fellow travelers, and continues to be. It's in academia, the popular culture, the media, both news and entertainment, government, everywhere. And a lot of it is made up or embellished out of a desire to evilizse Southern white folks. THAT is what I point out. I also occasionally point out certain realities that have to be ignored in order to evilize Southern whites ( See http://mybacksass.blogspot.com/2013/12/rape-accusation-expert-speaks-smirk.html )
You don't like it? Aw.... too bad.
And I point out the ills of the north because of absolutely risible claims, such as one you've made (the north "shed its sin" of slavery. What a crock of... What the north "shed" was most of its its black population...)
"There is no double standard. "
Yes, there is. Floggers showcase it.
"As for your last comment; more of the same. Same ol' straw man argument that just ain't true. JSTOR, and numerous other academic databases are full of articles dealing with racial issues in the North. Only Confederate Heritage advocates think otherwise."
Oh, yes, I see those databases referenced in comment threads all the time (sheesh), on flogger blogs and following news stories....They're just ubiquitous.
Please, Rob. Gimme a break. That is exactly what gets downplayed, minimized, ignored in in flogger peanut gallery comments.
"Honestly Connie, got any new material?"
Nope. As long as you floggers keep up your mission to evilize Southern whites, past and present, I will keep pointing out your unwarranted attacks, hypocrisy and double standard.
My argument is not illogical. It's not even an argument; it's an observation.
ReplyDeleteIt's hardly an observation. You've included numerous points and counterpoints. You've clearly created an illogical counter argument as a retort to Brooks Simpson. Why does he get so much attention? Is it the baldness?
Doesn't matter if it's true or not Connie, we were talking about the arguments themselves, not their validity.
Besides, you'd have to prove to me that most people thus evilizing white Southerners today even know about that propaganda, so yes, I believe many making the accusation today have "come up" with it because they've been instructed or influenced in "Southern white evil".
Well, since your titled "floggers" are engaged in academia, my assumption would be yes, but you'd have to ask them that. However, the burden of proof is on you Connie. You created the initial argument that those that "evilize" white southerners believe the "propaganda." So it is your job to prove it. To ask others to disprove your statements is another logical fallacy.
Like I told you, there are a plethora of resource materials on those items. You choose not to seek them out.
Deflection, deflection, deflection.
Don't like it? Interesting?
Perhaps that is not the best phrase to use. But the Northern part of the country definitely demonstrated themselves to be more progressive in that respect. The country also sought equality in the face of numerous Southern whites that sought to hinder that.
Yes, there is. Floggers showcase it.
No they don't. You just believe they do, because that's all you have left to do.
Oh, yes, I see those databases referenced in comment threads all the time (sheesh), on flogger blogs and following news stories....They're just ubiquitous.
Well, if they are found everywhere, then you should stop lying about their absence.
No, the "peanut gallery" just stays on topic. Something you have issues with.
Still waiting for you to make a point Connie, as opposed to the same ol' same ol'.
It's an observation. Since I'm the one making it, I know what it is.
ReplyDeleteSimpson gets my attention when he attacks Confederate heritage. I have explained this repeatedly. All the floggers get my attention for doing that. When they stick strictly to history, even history I may disagree with, I leave 'em alone.
"...the burden of proof is on you Connie. You created the initial argument that those that "evilize" white southerners believe the "propaganda." So it is your job to prove it. To ask others to disprove your statements is another logical fallacy. "
No, Rob. My point was quite the opposite -- "....you'd have to prove to me that most people thus evilizing white Southerners today even know about that propaganda..." because I don't believe they do know about it. It's mid-19th Century propaganda. It's a obscure subject. I suspect most Americans don't know much about it at all.
I stated clearly that I believe many making the accusation today have "come up" with it because they've been instructed or influenced in "Southern white evil".
Also note, Rob, that my reference to "most people thus evilizing white Southerners today" is not by any means limited to floggers.
What the northern part of the country demonstrated was that they did not want a large black population. It was really easy for them to be "progressive" about blacks since they didn't have to live with very many of them (and still don't. https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/maps/img/black.jpg ) Such progressivism didn't cost them anything and perfumed their actual track record on race. I sure has gullible folks like you fooled.
Yes, the floggers showcase it. I have documented it.
Rob, the comment about the databases being referenced everywhere was FACETIOUS. They are not referenced everywhere. They are hardly referenced at all. Don't get smart aleck about reading comprehension again when you take satire seriously.
I'm making my point. If you don't like it, what are you doing here? Why don't you go find some other blogger to harass?
It's an observation. Since I'm the one making it, I know what it is.
ReplyDeleteIt's an observation, up until the point where you begin to make counter arguments. Sorry.
Simpson gets my attention when he attacks Confederate heritage. I have explained this repeatedly. All the floggers get my attention for doing that. When they stick strictly to history, even history I may disagree with, I leave 'em alone.
You spend an awful lot of time on Simpsons. Makes one wonder.
No, Rob. My point was quite the opposite -- "....you'd have to prove to me that most people thus evilizing white Southerners today even know about that propaganda..." because I don't believe they do know about it. It's mid-19th Century propaganda. It's a obscure subject. I suspect most Americans don't know much about it at all.
Again, burden of proof. You have to prove that most people thus evilizing white Southerners today do noteven know about that propaganda...It is a logical fallacy to make an argument asking others to prove you wrong.
I stated clearly that I believe many making the accusation today have "come up" with it because they've been instructed or influenced in "Southern white evil".
Really? "Southern white evil"? lol
Also note, Rob, that my reference to "most people thus evilizing white Southerners today" is not by any means limited to floggers.
Well, that's the only people you spend time on and directly reference.
What the northern part of the country demonstrated was that they did not want a large black population. It was really easy for them to be "progressive" about blacks since they didn't have to live with very many of them (and still don't. https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/maps/img/black.jpg ) Such progressivism didn't cost them anything and perfumed their actual track record on race. I sure has gullible folks like you fooled.
Or it might be that because in the 19th century more than half of the country's black population, roughly four million people, lived in the South as slaves. Without the adequate funding to leave, their families lived on for generations. The "Great Migration" saw the exodus of over 6 million blacks to the North and other cities for employment opportunities around 1910. Even then, the majority of the black population remained in the South. Since 1965, there has been a reverse migration, The New Great Migration, in which blacks have moved back to the South for employment opportunities. The majority of the population never left the South. Is this to say that those that did leave and came back did not face persecution or racism, no. Also, your link leads no where.
Yes, the floggers showcase it. I have documented it.
You have documented cases of historical memory which exposed stupidity. Then you defend the stupidity, nothing more.
Rob, the comment about the databases being referenced everywhere was FACETIOUS. They are not referenced everywhere. They are hardly referenced at all. Don't get smart aleck about reading comprehension again when you take satire seriously.
So I give you a database with a seemingly infinite amount of knowledge and your retort is to be facetious. I guess we don't like things that prove us wrong, huh?
I'm making my point. If you don't like it, what are you doing here? Why don't you go find some other blogger to harass?
And that point is?.....
My point is, I know what I write and what I intend. I also know you are purposely distorting it. You are, in other words, lying. And you aren't going to do it here much longer, capisce?
ReplyDeleteMy point is, I know what I write and what I intend.
ReplyDeleteObviously not, let's recap. First you said,
"Rob, if the argument is logical, then it's not a logical fallacy."
When I proved that wrong, then you went to this argument,
My argument is not illogical. It's not even an argument; it's an observation."
An observation in this context would be like saying, "The boy argues that his shirt is red." But you don't do that, you begin arguing "The boy argues that his shirt is red, but he is a liar. The other boy's shirt is red and the first boy just wants to be like the other boy. His shirt is actually blue....prove me wrong." (I threw in the logical fallacy so people would know I'm satirizing you)
I also know you are purposely distorting it.
I'm not purposely distorting anything. I am plainly restating what you are saying, then pointing out how you are incessantly wrong.
You are, in other words, lying. And you aren't going to do it here much longer, capisce?
No capisce. Your point is as clear as mud. I'm not lying. You want me to be lying like you want the "Floggers" to be lying about history. It helps you feel better about the fact that you are a racist, who defends the racist actions of the old South....namely, by pointing out the flaws in others, i.e. the North. I truly hope you find a resolution to that problem, after all, you've got too few years left to be such a bitter old woman.
You are lying, and you are done commenting here. Do it on your own pathetic, neglected blog.
ReplyDeleteTypical. Stomp your feet, call someone a liar and then act like a coward. Very typical indeed.
ReplyDeleteWhat's typical, Rob, is your oily and extreme rudeness in coming to somebody's blog to insult and pick fights and lie, just because you don't approve of their views.
ReplyDeleteDon't reply to this. It won't just get unposted or sent to the spam filter. It will be deleted -- which is what such rudeness and mendacity deserve.