Who were and who are the KKK (SPLIT FROM: Stephen Breyer to retire)

[Bomb#20]

So you think that "Democrats" are homogeneous, that they share with the Republicans the trait of group-think. If ONE Democrat doesn't respect black people than NONE of them do. Thanks for clarifying your viewpoint.

You should not tell other people what they think. You have a reading comprehension problem. It leads you to making false damaging statements about others with reckless disregard for the truth.

Are you REALLY unfamiliar with the following VERY common message-board reductio ad absurdem ?

"[sarcastic caricature of a nonsensical claim] Thanks for clarifying your viewpoint."​

If you're sincere that you missed this then it is YOU with the comprehension problem. Can such caricatures be considered rude? Sure! But they're a good way to make a point quickly ... unless the rejoinderer is so pedantic as to pretend to miss the point.

At least I HOPE you're deliberately missing the point out of some sort of pedantry in the quote above. If you REALLY thought that my "If ONE Democrat doesn't respect black people than NONE of them do" was my honest assessment of your thinking, then I really wonder about you.

In order for such a sarcastic caricature to qualify as a reductio ad absurdum, it has to have something to do with what the previous poster said. The thing about a caricature is, in order to work as a caricature, it has to look kind of like the original.

So no, of course "If ONE Democrat doesn't respect black people than NONE of them do" wasn't your honest assessment of my thinking. It appeared to be an insinuation that my thinking somehow indirectly implied that. It appeared to be a sarcastic invitation to have me look at what I'd written, see that it indirectly implied that, realize for myself that what I'd written was inconsistent with my overall thinking, and change my mind about my premises or inferences in order to resolve the inconsistency. You know, like a, what do you call those things, a reductio ad absurdum? But in order for that to work, what I'd written would need to actually have indirectly implied that one democrat not respecting black people meant none of them do. Since I didn't imply that, and my actual claim wasn't nonsensical, what you wrote is just complete bosh. And defending it with "a joke is a joke" is beyond lame.

If you aren't sufficiently interested in Jason's opinion to take the trouble to find out what it is before you badmouth him, you should go find someone else whose opinion interests you and argue about that person's views instead.

There was a recent thread where Jason mumbled something about Libertarianism. I answered in depth, describing several breeds of libertariansim, and gave examples about how that doctrine has evolved in recent decades. Given the ambiguity of the term I asked Jason to clarify HIS libertarianism. All he had was "words mean what words mean" or some such insipid phrasing. I asked again and got no response. Do you need a link to that dialog?

Given this context I find your comments about my listening to or comprehending Jason to be pathetic.

Dude, you're the one who indicated you lacked interest in one of Jason's opinions after you'd taken the trouble to misrepresent it; nobody made you do that. The circumstance that you took quite a bit of interest in one of his other opinions in some other thread doesn't change the fact that you acted like a jerk in this one.

 

[Bomb#20]

Well, there are a lot of possibilities. Just as examples,...

Not what's happening here so not applicable.
...
Not what's happening here so not applicable.
...
Maybe applicable if you ignore the very thin line between conservative and libertarian views in many cases.

I see this post got split out to the new thread but my reply to it was left in the source thread. In case anyone still cares, it's here.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

That's a great example of how Ami Horowitz structures his propaganda to mislead viewers. Neither California nor New York have voter ID laws of the sort that Republicans are passing in other states. So he queries white students in Berkeley about what they think of "Voter ID laws". This is being asked in the context of laws that are being passed primarily in Republican states that require special types of IDs that people can use to vote, disallowing others. He then goes to NYC to query Black citizens about whether they have IDs or have trouble getting them. He carefully does not mention "voter ID laws", so they don't have the same context in which to frame the question answered by his Berkeley interviews. They also don't know why he is asking them this question or intends to use their answers. And, of course, neither California nor New York even require voter IDs when you vote, if you showed one to get registered to vote. In most cases, voters never have to even show an ID, since their signature is on record. They certainly don't have to get some carefully restricted type of ID to vote that Republican lawmakers knew many black voters would lack or find hard to get.

THANK YOU. That post perfectly demonstrates my point.

Those poor disadvantaged minorities don't know they are being fooled by trick questions, and they need white progressives to tell them that they are wrong to agree and that they actually disagree. It takes a white progressive to tell them their opinions are wrong and that they need to obey the wise superior white progressive.

In the past, it was "we are better so we should rule", now it is "we are better so you should obey." It has progressed from outright supremacism to picking up the burden of leadership.

Take up the White Man’s burden—
Send forth the best ye breed—
Go send your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need

To wait in heavy harness
On fluttered folk and wild—
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child

Take up the White Man’s burden
In patience to abide
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;

By open speech and simple
An hundred times made plain
To seek another’s profit
And work another’s gain

Take up the White Man’s burden—
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better
The hate of those ye guard—

The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah slowly) to the light:
"Why brought ye us from bondage,
“Our loved Egyptian night?”

Take up the White Man’s burden-
Have done with childish days-
The lightly proffered laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.

Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years,
Cold-edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!

 

[steve_bank]

You can look up the origins on the net, in general you might say it was a social-religious organization. There is no on single Klan. Peoleuse it for personal amd political power like David Dukes.

Looks lie it started with a small group and like social-political groups and regions grew into a fill fledged mythology with rituals and a power structure. The 'leader'.

As a kid my grandmother saw them on horses parading around in full regalia. This was in New England not the deep south.

It became a business in the 20th century. There were record companies that produced KKK materials, the Internet of the day used to sread hate speech.

Anti government.

I don't think they have much power anymore. They sed to have parades and demonstrte. The ACLU once defnded the KKK's right to have a parade. I think social and media pressure had a big effect.

Today it is the Neo Nazis and the white Aryan myth. Snappy Nazi uniforms are far cooler than wearing white sheets with holes.

Once in a while there are reports of cross burnings

Ku Klux Klan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Ku Klux Klan (/ˌkuː klʌks ˈklæn, ˌkjuː-/),https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#cite_note-26 commonly shortened to the KKK or the Klan, is an American white supremacist terrorist and hate group whose primary targets are African Americans, Jews, Latinos, Asian Americans, Catholics, Native Americans[25][26] as well as immigrants, leftists, homosexuals, Muslims, and atheists.[27][28][29]

The Klan has existed in three distinct eras. Each has advocated extremist reactionary positions such as white nationalism, anti-immigration and – especially in later iterations – Nordicism,[30][31] antisemitism, anti-Catholicism, Prohibition, right-wing populism, anti-communism, homophobia, Islamophobia, and anti-atheism. Historically, the first Klan used terrorism – both physical assault and murder – against politically active blacks and their allies in the Southern United States in the late 1860s. All three movements have called for the "purification" of American society and all are considered right-wing extremist organizations.[32][33][34][35] In each era, membership was secret and estimates of the total were highly exaggerated by both friends and enemies.

The first Klan was established in the wake of the American Civil War and was a defining organization of the Reconstruction era. Organized in numerous chapters across the Southern United States, it was suppressed through federal law enforcement around 1871. It sought to overthrow the Republican state governments in the South, especially by using voter intimidation and targeted violence against African-American leaders. Each chapter was autonomous and highly secret as to membership and plans. Members made their own, often colorful, costumes: robes, masks and conical hats, designed to be terrifying and to hide their identities.[36][37]

The second Klan started small in Georgia in 1915. It grew after 1920 and flourished nationwide in the early and mid-1920s, including urban areas of the Midwest and West. Taking inspiration from D. W. Griffith's 1915 silent film The Birth of a Nation, which mythologized the founding of the first Klan, it employed marketing techniques and a popular fraternal organization structure. Rooted in local Protestant communities, it sought to maintain white supremacy, often took a pro-Prohibition stance, and it opposed Catholics and Jews, while also stressing its opposition to the alleged political power of the pope and the Catholic Church. This second Klan flourished both in the south and northern states; it was funded by initiation fees and selling its members a standard white costume. The chapters did not have dues. It used K-words which were similar to those used by the first Klan, while adding cross burnings and mass parades to intimidate others. It rapidly declined in the later half of the 1920s.

The third and current manifestation of the KKK emerged after 1950, in the form of localized and isolated groups that use the KKK name. They have focused on opposition to the civil rights movement, often using violence and murder to suppress activists. This manifestation is classified as a hate group by the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center.[38] As of 2016, the Anti-Defamation League puts total KKK membership nationwide at around 3,000, while the Southern Poverty Law Center puts it at 6,000 members total.[39]

The second and third incarnations of the Ku Klux Klan made frequent references to a false mythologized perception of America's "Anglo-Saxon" blood, hearkening back to 19th-century nativism.[40] Although members of the KKK swear to uphold Christian morality, the group is widely denounced by Christian denominations.[41]

The first Klan was founded in Pulaski, Tennessee, on December 24, 1865,[42] by six former officers of the Confederate army:[43] Frank McCord, Richard Reed, John Lester, John Kennedy, J. Calvin Jones and James Crowe.[44] It started as a fraternal social club inspired at least in part by the then largely defunct Sons of Malta. It borrowed parts of the initiation ceremony from that group, with the same purpose: "ludicrous initiations, the baffling of public curiosity, and the amusement for members were the only objects of the Klan", according to Albert Stevens in 1907.[45] The manual of rituals was printed by Laps D. McCord of Pulaski.[46]

According to The Cyclopædia of Fraternities (1907), "Beginning in April, 1867, there was a gradual transformation. ...The members had conjured up a veritable Frankenstein. They had played with an engine of power and mystery, though organized on entirely innocent lines, and found themselves overcome by a belief that something must lie behind it all – that there was, after all, a serious purpose, a work for the Klan to do."[45]

 

[Copernicus]

Jason, anyone can be fooled by trickery and deception. The video wasn't really made to fool the people being interviewed. It was made to fool the conservative audience it was intended to be shown to, and that certainly includes you. You appear oblivious to the point I was making about Ami Horowitz's deception, but I expected that. For you, the film serves its purpose as a propaganda tool.

 

[steve_bank]

Historically Democrats do take minority support as a given. A lot of pandering and lip service, politicans on the left have to check the campaign boxes as do those on the right. . It is not like monorities are being fooled. Ovr the last two election cycles there has been discussion of minoriyies expecting tangible results in exchange for votes.

That being said it is the Democrats who directly oppose racism and work legislation to support rights.

Minorities as 'property of democrats' is something you'd hear from Hannity or Carlson on FOX. Political feces throwing.

A liberterian is someone who says they are a libertarian, it varies from eperson to person. Like Democrats and Republicans libertrians vary form liberal to modeate to conservative to whacky.

 

[Rhea]

Those poor disadvantaged minorities don't know they are being fooled by trick questions,

No, he said the minorities disadvantaged by voter ID laws were never interviewed.
Wondering how you didn't understand that. It was pretty clearly written.

 

[ZiprHead]

Those poor disadvantaged minorities don't know they are being fooled by trick questions,

No, he said the minorities disadvantaged by voter ID laws were never interviewed.
Wondering how you didn't understand that. It was pretty clearly written.

You can lead a horse to water and all...

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Jason, anyone can be fooled by trickery and deception. The video wasn't really made to fool the people being interviewed.

Those poor disadvantaged minorities don't need to be fooled to answer questions in the wrong way, they just need to be asked without a wise white progressive there to tell them what their answer should be.

It isn't about Ami Horowitz fooling people, it is about progressives thinking they have the intellectual authority to tell minorities what they should be thinking.

 

[Copernicus]

Jason, anyone can be fooled by trickery and deception. The video wasn't really made to fool the people being interviewed.

Those poor disadvantaged minorities don't need to be fooled to answer questions in the wrong way, they just need to be asked without a wise white progressive there to tell them what their answer should be.

It isn't about Ami Horowitz fooling people, it is about progressives thinking they have the intellectual authority to tell minorities what they should be thinking.

None of those people were informed that they would be used to produce a carefully edited video to make it appear that they disapproved voter ID laws generally, as opposed to the ones passed by partisan Republican legislatures to limit access to polls by likely Democratic voters. Similarly, the New York blacks were not informed that they would be made to look like they were fine with laws passed to suppress the black vote in Southern states. They were talking about just being able to get IDs in New York, not getting the very restricted IDs in states covered by Republican laws, because no reference was made to voter ID laws as it was in the California interviews. The video was put together for the sole purpose of promoting your false narrative that progressives look are hypocrites and racists. I think you understand that point very well, yet you insist on pretending that the video was not a misleading piece of racist propaganda.

 

[laughing dog]

Jason, anyone can be fooled by trickery and deception. The video wasn't really made to fool the people being interviewed.

Those poor disadvantaged minorities don't need to be fooled to answer questions in the wrong way, they just need to be asked without a wise white progressive there to tell them what their answer should be.

It isn't about Ami Horowitz fooling people, it is about progressives thinking they have the intellectual authority to tell minorities what they should be thinking.

No, it is about conservatives being disingenuous. Using the Ami Horowitz technique, your response becomes

"Those minorities don't need to be fooled to answer questions in the wrong way".

But hey, you keep doing your deliberate mischaracterization of positions.