|
Post by Amadan on Nov 4, 2018 21:09:57 GMT -5
I didn't realize that a desire to commit genocide was a requirement for a crime against humanity. I guess that's the same reason the other events I mentioned, the near-eradication of Indigenous Americans or the 100 million that perished as a result of communist regimes don't qualify as crimes against humanity either. Those were just honest mistakes by bureaucrats seeking to expand their power.
People who sought to eradicate the Native Americans actually wanted to eradicate Native Americans.
Nazis who built death camps actually wanted to build death camps.
People who wanted pot criminalized were not trying to create the criminal network that would exist generations later.
You keep switching back and forth between intentionality (which would absolve people who weren't actually trying to cause deaths) and consequentialism (which would indict you as well).
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 4, 2018 20:46:20 GMT -5
No reason to guess at Anslinger's motivation, since it was described earlier with this quote from CBS. He was on record doing a 180 on Cannabis after his appointment, having previously considered Cannabis no big deal. Then he ginned up the whole "Reefer Madness" business, every bit built on lies. The CBS article documents it thoroughly. I'd say a self-serving decision to equate a plant he had previously considered harmless with cocaine and heroin lays every death, every bit of destruction, every medicinal death that could have been prevented, every incarceration from the War on Cannabis squarely at his feet. No inclusion, no War on Cannabis. And thanks to America's "leadership" role, that War spread around the world. There have been executions and beheadings because of that decision. Sometimes it really is that direct a connection. You've still only shown evidence that he was a bureaucrat who wanted more power, not that he was motivated by a desire to commit genocide.
As for being responsible for executions and beheadings that have happened because of that decision, I'm going to say that as much as I hate all those anti-drug commercials that try to guilt people by linking drugs with terrorism, that link does exist, so you - yes, you Don - are responsible for putting money into the pockets of people who do those things too. You may resent it, you may think it's horribly unfair and the government has no right to criminalize drugs so it's the government's fault if you decide to break the law and put money into the pockets of criminals and terrorists... and to be clear, I do not actually hold you responsible for being at the other end of a supply chain that includes criminals and terrorists. But if everyone involved in creating and enforcing the laws that resulted in that supply chain is responsible for all its crimes, then I don't see how you get to skate out of any culpability yourself for the completely voluntary choice to support that supply chain.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 4, 2018 20:25:18 GMT -5
Well, I'll tell you what - if you could dig up Nixon or Anslinger from the grave and bring them to trial with evidence that it was actually their end goal to commit genocide against black people, sure, I'd be up for trying them.
I doubt very much that you could actually make a case for that, however. It's much more likely that Anslinger's motivation was "Drugs are bad, including weed, and making them a federal issue will give me more power, and fuck black people anyway." Yeah, he ignored scientific evidence that contradicted his world view and his own self-interest. This is unfortunately something people in government do quite often, which is one of the reasons you're always on about how the government is evil.
None of that is noble and all of it deserves our contempt, but you're still barking mad saying he's literally equivalent to Hitler, and even from a consequentialist point of view, you still have a weak case that he's personally responsible for millions of deaths.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 4, 2018 19:26:25 GMT -5
You and I obviously see the criminals as very different groups of people. If persecuting whole classes of people, having the highest incarceration rate in the world, and destroying the inner cities by ignoring science and medicine and lying to the entire country to maintain the charade is ok with you, so be it. It's not ok with me. I consider it criminal, to say the least. And please note that I separate the War on (Some) Drugs from the War on Cannabis, and made that very clear a couple of posts ago. It's clear from the CBS article that Harry Anslinger knew that Cannabis did not belong under the same umbrella as heroin, opium, crack, and meth; it's inclusion was purely political in nature. Those who followed in his footsteps have had acccess to the same information, and chose to ignore it for their own gain. Pure deceit, pure evil. There was absolutely no "greater good" involved here. Even consequentialists should no longer be willing to cut the War on Cannibis and it's perpetrators any slack. It was based entirely on lies and contributed only negatively to the "greater good." Not to mention the damage it's done to respect for the rule of law.
This entire line of argumentation, from "is ok with you" to "should no longer be willing to cut the War on Cannibis and it's perpetrators any slack" is uncharitable, bad faith, and disingenuous. It's exactly the style of argumentation I hate when used by other persons.
No one said they "are okay" with the war on cannabis, and as for "cutting them slack," let's talk about what you're really saying here: would you literally line up Anslinger and everyone else who has supported criminalizing cannabis, try them with crimes against humanity, and execute them? Because if that is literally what you want to do to people who write bad government policy, even with self-interested motives, you appear to be in favor of a purge that would do Stalin proud.
What me and rob are literally saying is that comparing people who criminalize drugs, even if it was for bureaucratically self-interested reasons, is not the same as rounding people up and shipping them to death camps for the purpose of slaughtering them. If you literally do not see any difference between a bureaucrat who wanted to expand his office and so pushed for criminalizing a bunch of drugs, and a bureaucrat who wanted to exterminate Jews and so pushed for sending Jews to death camps, then you have completely lost any sense of proportion or nuance here, and that's why I keep making sarcastic comments about how much you love your weed. As much as you rail against the gummint here, there, and everywhere, and talk about all the manifold evils of federal power, I know of no other topic that gets you up on such a high horse that you are literally arguing that lawmakers and law enforcers rank with Nazis in their crimes against humanity. If this weren't such a personal hotbutton for you, you could surely find much greater damage in our oil policies, our foreign policies, our monetary policies, or just about anything else. But no, all those things you think are bad, but it's making pot illegal that makes you want to hold Nuremberg II hearings.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 4, 2018 9:11:17 GMT -5
It's not about "good intentions," Don. Sure, the people who started and perpetuate the War on Drugs are often self-serving bureaucrats, not people who genuinely believe they are saving children from the evil demon weed.
I linked to that old PBS series Connections for a reason. It's quite fascinating (though I admit I have not watched it in many, many years, so I can't absolutely vouch for how well it's held up over time). As a child, it blew my mind by pointing out that history isn't a simple linear cause and effect: "Borders look like this because of this war. This law was passed because of this event." Etc. Rather, decisions made five hundred years ago can shape the way an empire develops in ways never intended or foreseen. One technology in a little city in Rome results in a much more important technology two hundred years later. Right now, we're looking at climate change and what's likely to result from a lot of decisions made over the past century.
The point being, you have constructed an interesting Connections-like narrative that assigns the deaths of literally millions of people to... outlawing cannabis. And maybe you're even correct. But you could find many, many such actions that have probably had just as significant an impact. Hating the government as much as you do, I'm sure you could make a hobby of it. I mean, let's start with the auto industry and how city planners in Los Angeles and auto makers collaborated to ensure a sprawling mess of highways, and turn America into a "car culture" that would eschew mass transit. I'd love to see someone tally up the total damage from that.
But calling it a Holocaust is still assigning not just intent in spirit, but intent in action. It's simplistic to call the Nazis "pure evil" because obviously, they had reasons that made sense to them (though at some point they crossed the moral event horizon - there is no rational way you could justify death camps as actually improving anyone's life). But regardless of their motivations, there is no question that they set out to kill millions of people. That was their end-goal. People who want cannabis criminalized, or who prefer highways to subways, or who opposed green energy, are not trying to kill millions of people. Maybe one can trace a network of cause-and-effect and say that that's what resulted, but saying that criminalizing cannabis or selling SUVs makes you guilty of a Holocaust is hyperbole meant to stir emotions, not present a reasoned argument. You know "Holocaust" is an emotive word, and rather than conveying your passion on the subject, it just makes you sound like a loon who's gone completely off the rails in your outrage at being hindered in your efforts to toke.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 3, 2018 20:47:39 GMT -5
This entire tangent sprang from my telling Cass that I think the country was worse in the 1930s than now. You jumped on that and accused me of saying that everything is wonderful for black people today. Which I did not say, or imply. I wasn't even referring specifically to racial inequality (though I believe racial inequality was worse in the 1930s also), I was referring to the fact that the economy was worse, poverty more widespread, and income inequality was greater, plus we had active fascist (actual, literal fascist) pro-Hitler movements in our political parties.
You keep demanding proof the country has made progress since then. As many problems as still exist, I find it hard to understand why you think the advances that have been made since the end of the Jim Crow era, the end of an era where the KKK openly ran candidates for political office, the end of all-but-legal lynchings, the ability of black people to enter careers, schools, and neighborhoods that were absolutely closed to them previously, the advent of affirmative action and the Civil Rights Era, the rise of a black upper class, and discussions of racism, representation, and privilege that are taken very seriously and affecting the media, private businesses, and politics all around the world .... represents no progress at all.
I don't have to believe that we're in a post-racial era or that white supremacy doesn't exist or that #blacklivesmatter isn't meaningful to think that we are in a better place than we were in the 1930s. And by "we," yes, I mean white and black people. "Better" does not mean good and wonderful, it means a lot less bad than then. If you think otherwise, then what measurement are you using?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 3, 2018 13:52:23 GMT -5
I can't even fathom how the intersection of MyPillow customers and Trump supporters works. Other than MyPillow looks like the sort of thing you'd see hawked on InfoWars along with tinfoil hats?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 3, 2018 11:51:32 GMT -5
In a court of law you would have nothing to prove I defamed your character with scurrilous accusations that I've called you a racist. Not what you interpreted and not what you strongly suspect, but without equivocation, without the parsing of words, double entendres, mixed messages, vague hints or allegations and ambiguity.
I didn't accuse you of legal libel. That's called moving the goalposts.
Equivocation, parsing, double entendres, mixed messages, vague hints, and ambiguity is exactly what I am accusing you of. No, you do not say "You Are a Racist." You very carefully dance around making such a direct statement. You imply things.
You have, on several occasions, gotten extremely angry at what you thought were dogwhistles - words like "apeshit" and "son." No one in those posts said anything that was racist, but you definitely read implications into them. So if you want to demand a new standard, that nobody can be accused of saying anything that they do not directly and unambiguously say in plain English, then apply that standard to yourself.
You want me to dig up all your posts? I guess we can play that game if you think it will prove something, but what a tedious exercise. You will just dance around all of them.
Let's start with this one. It was the argument about letting racists speak on campus. You said:
I rejected that, and your response was a gif of a clapping Joker. Great rebuttal. No, you didn't say I'm a racist, just that I'm "all for" a racist speaking on campus, and "indifferent" to racism.
And that's what most of your responses in this topic are like - you don't say me (or any of the other white guys you argue with on the board) are racists. You just associate us with racists, talk about how we like racists, defend racists, etc. - usually in a disingenuous manner deliberately ignoring anything else that was said except the phrase you cherry-picked out of a longer post - and then write a long screed, usually with a long quote from someone else about the oblivious malice of white people.
This isn't about me being sensitive or upset or feeling hurt. You love to keep throwing that one out there because you think it scores. Yeah, I dislike being called a bigot as much as anyone else who isn't a bigot, but the reason I keep reacting to those posts isn't because you made me cry, it's because I am annoyed that you say inaccurate things, especially about me.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 3, 2018 11:15:43 GMT -5
Damn, Don got crucified for resurrecting a word that a vociferous part of society feel they alone have a monopoly on? A stoning would have been better than a crucifixion.
If he'd used the words "genocide" or "mass murder" it would still be bullshit and he'd have been called on it.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 3, 2018 10:35:35 GMT -5
But one thing I really DON'T get is the knee-jerk reaction to automatically diss anyone who has some passion on a subject and reject, disregard, or ignore the substance of what they are saying merely because they have emotion about it. They are emotional or angry; ergo, they are wrong and may be safely dismissed and ignored. Their emotion becomes the topic. And never mind if perhaps there is some justification for their emotion or anger (even if it seems disproportionate, from our point of view).
Me and rob both said, very clearly, that we agree with Don that the war on drugs is stupid and that pot should be legalized. So how did we ignore the substance of what he said?
The form of what he said, which was a hyperbolic and offensive statement, provoked irritation, yes, but that does not mean we ignored the substance.
I think your accusation is unfounded.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 3, 2018 10:32:26 GMT -5
Nice factual rebuttals, at least. Interesting how I've gone from an intelligent, thoughtful participant to nothing but a pot head in one thread. That marijuana reefer I smoked with that black jazz musician must have destroyed my logic circuits.
What is there to factually rebut about claiming that banning pot is a crime against humanity equivalent to the Holocaust? Seriously?
You want us to dive into all your cause-and-effect links meant to "support" that claim, like plastics in the ocean and all the other marvelous world-changing technologies we'd supposedly have if hemp hadn't been outlawed? Those are, at best, hypotheticals, and trying to construct a "Holocaust" from that with actuarial projections is exceedingly disingenuous. That is the worst form of argumentation and you should know better.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 3, 2018 10:20:35 GMT -5
The attempt to mock Eddo-Lodge fell flat, but if subconsciously your true plan was to prove her right, you the free bucket of chicken at KFC. All you did was how ridiculous it is for a Black people trying to be honest and talk sense about racial reality to White people really is. The hard truth you and Amadan do not and seemingly can not grasp is despite the protestations to the contrary, we all cannot be expert on EVERY goddamn topic in the world. Some of are smart on some things, but primarily, we're all really dumb on a LOT of things.
Incidentally, I had a more sympathetic read of Eddo-Lodge's essay, and I disagreed with rob's statement about it, and almost said as much, but instead I ended up just responding to you implicitly accusing me of being an ignorant bigot again. Me and rob do not have the same opinions about all race-related topics just because we're both white guys.
The fact that once again you claimed I that I think I know what it's like to be black in America when I have never said that indicates that even if I had tried to give a thoughtful response to what Eddo-Lodge says, I think you'd cherry pick my response for whatever disagreements I might have, throw up your hands and declare "See, you can't even hear black people when they speak their truth! That's why it's pointless to talk to you!" And then post another picture of a lynching or pig balls or something. Which totally isn't meant to imply anything personal.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 3, 2018 10:10:14 GMT -5
The short and brutally blunt answer would be, " Because I like celawson and I don't like you," and as to why I do not like you, well... reasons. As to my thinking you are a bigot (and celawson) is not, I do not recall calling you a bigot or a racist. Do you have an example where I did since in my advancing age, I clearly do not recall. I've shown you mine. Now show me yours. 🙄
Your quote block is empty, so it's not clear what you're responding to in your first statement - I didn't ask if you liked me, and I know why you dislike me - for much the same reason that I dislike you, except of course you think you're right and I'm wrong, and I think the opposite.
As to the bigot part, stop that innocent blinking. Just because you don't type the words "You're a bigot" doesn't mean you're not throwing out messages you know we're meant to pick up. The subtext of all this nonsense about me thinking myself a "Great White Father," and accusing me repeatedly of saying America is great for black people, and in practically every thread, implicitly accusing me of disrespecting black people (and by extension, you, because you're black)... if you don't think I'm a bigot, then half the things you say to me (and about me) don't even make sense.
What else is it exactly that you want me to show you?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 2, 2018 15:25:32 GMT -5
This is not just about recreational cannabis. How many people have died from the War on Drugs? How many families and neighborhoods destroyed? And over how many decades? How many countless millions more because drug research was forbidden for decades? How many more do you care to assign to petrochemical pollution? Opiod addictions that could have been easily prevented? The still-growing environmental disaster of microplastics? And all to give good ol' Harry an excuse to get his racist jollies, give Nixon something to use against equal rights and anti-war movements, and give the military-industrial complex a domestic market. Yeah, I'll stand by my statement. The damage we see now is just a tiny tip of the iceberg. If you want to play Connections, you can tie just about any major social, technological, or cultural institution, especially a negative one, to some huge number of deaths, our failure to have Mars colonies, and the fall of an empire or two. I get it, Don, you really like your weed and you really resent the government interfering with your weed supply, but it's not the fucking Holocaust, and this comparison is possibly the most retarded thing you've ever posted.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 2, 2018 15:15:33 GMT -5
Fight? Like it's 3:00 pm and school's out and you're gonna meet me outside and kick my ass because you don't like it when I tell you you're not the Great White Father and I should believe you because you think things are so much better for Blacks than it was in the Thirties and Fifties? No, fight like you have a festering need to start a fight and you're going to make up whatever you feel like claiming I said in order to feel better about starting one. Nothing you have attributed to me actually resembles my position, stated or unstated, about anything. I'm not sure if you realize this and don't care because you have a personal beef you just can't satisfy, or if you don't realize this because you can't think straight once you've got your mad on. ETA: Okay, I'll bite, against my better judgement: You keep framing this as me being upset that you're challenging me. I'm not. I may disagree with you about plenty, but contra that article you posted, it's the disagreement that comes from listening to what you say and thinking "No, I don't think that's correct," not some kind of "white fragility" that goes "How dare this black guy disagree with me?!" However much of a righteous boner it may give you to believe that. No, I did not forget that. Why do you think I am a bigot and celaw is not? (Note, celaw - I am not suggesting you are a bigot.)
|
|